No CO2 warming for the last 40 years?

It is very cold here in the Eastern US and the President is joking about the lack of global warming. More interesting by far is the fact that there appears to have been no CO2 induced warming in the last 40 years, which is as far back as the satellite measurements go.

That this incredible fact has gone unnoticed is due mostly to the scientific community’s fixation on the warming shown by the surface temperature statistical models. But as explained here, these complex computer models are completely unreliable.

Also, the satellite measurements do show some global warming, which people have mistakenly assumed somehow supports the hypothesis of human caused, CO2 induced warming. Careful inspection shows that this assumption is false. There is in fact no evidence of CO2 warming in the entire satellite record.

To see this one must look at the satellite record in detail. To understand this, bear in mind that science is all about the specific details of an observation. These details can overthrow grand theories that are widely accepted.

For example, the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment led to the revolutionary special theory of relativity. When it comes to global warming, the 40 year satellite measurements provide a strong negative result for the CO2 warming hypothesis. The CO2 warming just is not there.

It gives the monthly almost-global temperature readings for the lower atmosphere. The satellites do not cover the entire globe, just most of it. There is also a red line showing a 13-month running average temperature.

Note that on the vertical scale the temperatures are shown as what are called anomalies, not as actual temperatures. An anomaly here is the difference in degrees Celsius between the actual temperature and an arbitrarily chosen average temperature. That average temperature defines the zero line in the graph. Why this is done is not important for our discussion.

To begin with look at the period from the beginning to 1997. The red line shows that this is what is called an aperiodic oscillator. It is an oscillator because it consistently goes up and down, up and down, etc. It is aperiodic, as opposed to periodic, because the ups and downs are somewhat irregular.

It should be clear by inspection that there is very little, if any, overall warming during this period. That is, the red line is oscillating around roughly the -0.1 degree line.

When you have an aperiodic oscillator with this few oscillations there is no point in trying to be extremely precise, because the next oscillation might change things a bit. In particular, one must be very careful in doing straight line (that is, linear) trend analysis, because the result will be very sensitive to where you start and stop the trend.

So let’s just say that there is little or no warming during this period. This was well known at the time and it was a major issue in the climate change debate.

Then comes what is often called the giant El Nino, although it is actually a giant El Nino-La Nina cycle in ocean circulation. First the temperatures go way up, then way down, before stabilizing back into a natural aperiodic oscillator.

The giant El Nino-La Nina cycle looks to begin mid-1997, interrupting a downward moving aperiodic oscillation. It ends sometime in 2001, followed by a new aperiodic oscillation. However, this oscillation is warmer, centered roughly on the +0.15 line. The new oscillator continues until another big El Nino-La Nina oscillation hits, around 2015. What this last El Nino cycle will do remains to be seen

Thus the graph looks to have basically four distinct periods. First the little-to-no warming period from 1979 until 1997. Second the giant El Nino-La Nina cycle from 1997 until 2001. Third, the warmer little-to-no warming period from 2001 to 2015. Fourth the new El Nino-La Nina cycle that is still in progress.

Yes there is some warming but it appears to be almost entirely coincident with the giant El Nino-La Nina cycle. The simplest explanation is that the second flat aperiodic period is warmer than the first because of the El Nino effect. Perhaps some heat was injected into the atmosphere that remained, thereby increasing the baseline for the next aperiodic oscillator.

But in no case is there any evidence of CO2 induced warming here, nor of any human-caused warming for that matter. These causes would produce a relatively steady warming over time, not the single episodic warming that we clearly see here. In particular, to my knowledge there is no known way that the gradual CO2 increase could have caused this giant El Nino-La Nina cycle.

Thus the little warming that there is in the last 40 years appears to be more or less entirely natural. In any normal science this result would be sufficient to invalidate the hypothesis that the increasing CO2 concentration is causing global warming.

Why. CO2 dont do anything. Isnt that right deniers? Ya could decimate the level, or multiply the level by 10 and it wouldnt matter a fig. All the physics are wrong. Everything we know is wrong. Isnt that right deniers?
You stupid stupid imbeciles.

David Wojick
January 3, 2018 at 11:42 AM

No, it is your concept of the physics that is wrong. That CO2 is a GHG does not mean that increasing CO2 will increase the heat content of the atmosphere. There are many other processes at work, some of which are well known not to be well understood.

My point is simply that observation says the CO2 increase has had no warming effect. In science observation trumps conjecture.

Calling people that you clearly do not understand stupid imbeciles is, well, stupid and imbecilic. But I suppose that trying to understand is beneath you.

kuhnkat
January 3, 2018 at 4:07 PM

Everyone YOU know, maybe…

Li D
January 3, 2018 at 7:15 AM

Oops. I had a niggly feeling i got the meaning of decimate wrong and looked it up.
I intended to mean reduce by 90%.

9.8m/ss
January 3, 2018 at 12:08 PM

Show me an ant or an elephant that can mine fossil carbon from deep in the earth and release it into the atmosphere.
Breathing is carbon-neutral. That is, it doesn’t add new carbon to the atmosphere.

kuhnkat
January 3, 2018 at 4:06 PM

Then we don’t have to worry about the cow farts either do we…

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Better let Gubernator Moonbeam in California know post haste.

BigWaveDave
January 8, 2018 at 2:50 AM

Eventually all the natural organically stored solar energy that we don’t burn will get burned as it is subducted into Earth’s hot mantle.

9.8m/ss
January 9, 2018 at 1:24 PM

So what? That’s millions of years in the future. The risk to civilization from waste CO2 manifests over the next few decades or centuries.

BigWaveDave
January 9, 2018 at 4:07 PM

How could CO2 possibly cause any quantifiable risk that is of a magnitude sufficient to cancel the benefits from CO2 enrichment?

9.8m/ss
January 10, 2018 at 11:49 AM

That’s not a serious question. The risks from waste CO2 are extensively documented. JAQ somebody else.

Robert
January 10, 2018 at 12:03 PM

The basis of bwd argument indicates the writer as a candidate for 8th grade Earth Science summer school. Must weigh heavy knowing that…..

Or knowingly attempting to conflate two separate carbon cycles… basic science for …… which would then point to…..

BigWaveDave
January 10, 2018 at 6:32 PM

It is a serious question when taken in the context that we are talking about CO2 that is produced from combustion of fuels to release their naturally stored solar energy.

How could the CO2 produced ever cause a negative result that could outweigh the benefit of greater food production from the CO2 enrichment?

As the legend states, your graph is mixing two different measuring methods, which makes it suspect. Also, it only uses the Mauna Loa atmospheric record, and does not include many direct empirically observed atmospheric CO2 measurements which are even higher than your entire chart. Here are some from peer reviewed science Fonsellius(1956) ‘Carbon Dioxide Variations in the Atmosphere’: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/05ddd31685ebd76cf05a2acb5c6854dcaa7cf286a072e7389ea84f52baad78fb.png . Also note the peer reviewed paper in 1956 calls attention to the circled values in the Figure from the paper which were cherry picked by Callendar, ignoring the many inconvenient higher direct measurements. Climate alarmists use only Callendar’s cherry picked values.

You are accepting the biased propaganda from climate alarmists. Today’s CO2 levels are well within previous direct atmospheric measured levels.

So what is responsible for CO2 levels. The latest peer reviewed science, Harde(2017) says:

“The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15%” – Harde(2017) ‘Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere’

Nothing climate-related happening currently is outside the bounds of what has happened previously.

In a nutshell here were his errors.
The average residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is found to be 4 years.
[The residence time for an individual molecule is not the same as the perturbation response time of the carbon cycle which has timescales of decades to thousands of years.]

The anthropogenic fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4.3%.
[Actually, it’s 30%.]

Human emissions only contribute 15% to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era.
[It’s all of it.]

The debunking paper was published in the same journal.

RealOldOne2
January 4, 2018 at 12:11 PM

“Harde’s Paper was debunked…”
No, it wasn’t. The paper has not been retracted. Attack pieces were concocted against it so the the IPPC could falsely discount it and avoid including any sciene that is contrary to the climate alarmist religion’s dogmas.

“[It’s all of it]”
That’s an evidence-free claim which is based on the false assumption that natural levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are constant and never change. Real world empirical evidence shows that is a false assumption.

MichaelR
January 4, 2018 at 12:36 PM

So if it’s Harde’s paper that challenges climate change then it’s a legitimate piece of research. If it’s Köhler’s response to such a paper that points a giant mistake at the heart of the papers methodology (which you did not defend] then it’s an “attack piece” and is to be ignored. Glad I have that straight.

Re the anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere, are you deliberately mixing up the annual contribution and the aggregate contribution as a result of anthropogenic actively causing an imbalance as a ruse or was that by accident? Do I need to do the analogy of a bath with taps and a plug hole and someone turning on a second tap and the depth of the water rising etc?

RealOldOne2
January 4, 2018 at 2:29 PM

So have you deleted this comment too like you did your comment to David on El Ninos?
Why do you immediately delete comments that you make?
Evidently you know they can’t stand up to scrutiny by real science, so you delete so your logically fallacious arguments can’t be pointed out.

Köhler’s response is fatally flawed because it is based on the false assumption that natural CO2 level is constant, and the only thing that can change it is human addition of CO2.

Your arguments fail.

MichaelR
January 4, 2018 at 2:49 PM

Err, I still see my comments. If disq.us or cfact are zapping them, I can’t control that. Indeed it annoys the crap out of me! I do sometimes read back my comments and notice they need SPAG corrections, so I correct them.
EDIT: DISQUS MARKED MY LAST COMMENT TO DAVID AS SPAM?! I WILL TRY TO REPOST.

The work on how much CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by humans has a lot of papers dedicated to working it out. They do an accounting for the known sources and sinks of CO2 and see how the known contribution from the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities plays into that. It is not Köhler that you have to tackle there. It’s the hundreds of papers that established the figures that generally accepted and went into the last IPCC report etc.

Köhler was not establishing a new figure. He was scrutinising the Harde paper and pointing out the error in Harde’s methodology that Harde used to get his much lower figure. If someone else can come to Harde’s aid (and if he is onto something then they really should be able to) then one would expect another paper, preferably in a slightly better regarded journal, replicating Harde’s results. That has not happened, but if it does, then I a, happy to re-evaluate my views in light of it.

RealOldOne2
January 4, 2018 at 3:46 PM

Your comments will continue to show up on your loaded webpage. You must reload the page to see if the comment is still there. Disqus should filter the comment prior to it being posted. If the post is caught in the website’s spam/keyword filter system, it will tell you something like ‘Hold on, this comment is awaiting moderation’ or something like that, and it will never show up to others. I doubt if David Wojick is deleting your comments.

Again, you are ignoring the fatal flaw of Kohler, the assumption that the only cause of changes in CO2 is human perturbation. The history of the planet shows that is not true. And recent empirical data also shows that is not true, as the levels of CO2 are constantly changing, and the changes are tied to temperature changes, not the fairly steady release of CO2 by humans.

Peer reviewed science shows that CO2 lags temperature changes in all the various temperature records:

“Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millenium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface temperature data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. …

A main control on atmospheric CO2 appears to be the ocean surface temperature, and remains a possibility that a significant part of the overall increase of atmospheric CO2 since at least 1958 (start of Mauna Loa observations) simply relflects the gradual warming of the oceans as a result of the prolonged period of high solar activity since 1920 (Solanki et al., 2004). Based on the GISP2 ice core proxy record from Greenland it has previously been pointed out that the present period of warming since 1850 to a high degree may be explained by a natural c. 1100 yr periodic temperature variation (Humlum et al., 2011). …

As the rate of net CO2 outgassing from the ocean then is affected by reduced solubility, this offers a simple physical explanation of the observed time lag. …

Conclusions
There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower tropospheric temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.
(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11-12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9.5-10 months behind changes in global surface air temperature.
(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
(5) Changes in ocean temperature appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
(6) CO2 released from anthropogene sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.
(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.” – Humlum et al., (2013), ‘The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature’

MichaelR
January 4, 2018 at 4:31 PM

First, I think it’s unhelpful to conflate the Harde/Köhler situation with material from other papers that is not directly relevant. It’s all related to climate change of course, but Humlum is not trying to make the point that what Harde was. Humlum is not a defence of Köhler, so unless you have anything that is, then let’s leave that to one side. Harde made some assertions. The same journal later published another paper that refuted it fairly fundamentally. No one has since come to Harde’s aid to stand up his methods or conclusions AFAIK.

So onto Humlum. Well, remarkably, it looks like a similar story with a different cast of characters. The Humlum paper got panned by Richardson 2013. Again both papers published in the same (seemingly not so well edited) journal. It’s modest impact factor will be on the skids if they keep this up. Anyway, here is Richardson 2013.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908

The criticisms are not trivial. Highlights
•Humlum et al.’s conclusion of natural CO2 rise since 1980 not supported by the data
•Their use of differentiated time series removes long term contributions.
•This conclusion violates conservation of mass.
•Further analysis shows that the natural contribution is indistinguishable from zero.
•The calculated human contribution is sufficient to explain the entire rise.

So, again, if anyone has come to Humlum’s aid or knocked down Richardson’s rebuttal (which amount to the same thing) then let me know. But it looks like it would’ve unwise to rely on Humlum when his conclusions have been fundamentally attacked and no other group or author can stand up his claims again. If you have a paper that does, hopefully not in Global and Planetary Change as it seems rather error prone, then do point me at it.

RealOldOne2
January 4, 2018 at 6:47 PM

Once again, it appears that MichaelR deleted his comment after he posted it. His comment raised a strawman about conflating the Harde/Kohler situation with the Humlum paper. I didn’t do that.
Then MichaelR claimed that Richardson(2013) rebutted Humlum(2013), but as I pointed out in my reply, which I couldn’t post because he had deleted the comment, none of the attempted rebuttals even addressed the main point of Humlum(2013) which was the phase relation between CO2 and global temperature.

Here is my entire reply to MichaelR which I couldn’t post because he apparently deleted his comment because he didn’t want to see it refuted.

“it is unhelpful to conflate the Harde/Kohler situation with material from other papers…”
You are fabricating a strawman. I didn’t conflate the two.
I
pointed out the fatal flaw in Kohler’s attempted refutation of Harde,
the false assumption that CO2 levels would be constant without human
perturbation. You have not even attempted to address that.

The
totally separate point I made was that your climate alarmist meme that
anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of climate warming is shown
to be false because all the temperature records show that CO2lags temperature changes, both up and down. Since a
cause must come before an effect, that means that temperature changes
cause CO2 changes, NOT the other way around, like you claim.

“remarkably, it looks like a similar story”
It’s
not remarkable at all. It’s SOP for your climate cult to write attack
pieces on any peer reviewed science that is contrary to your CAGW-by-CO2
climate cult’s agenda/narrative/meme. They began that after the
climategate emails exposed the climate alarmists’ corrupt practice of
gatekeeping to keep any papers contrary to “the cause” from being
published in peer reviewed journals.

And really, to use one of
your climate cult’s dishonest propaganda blogs which is run by a
self-described “cartoonist” and “professional scrawler”,http://web.archive.org/web/20071213172906/www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3
, is absurd. The dishonest practices of changing/deleting and
misrepresenting comments on the SkS blog is documented in these
examples: bit.ly/Pkj847 , bit.ly/RN6I4v , bit.ly/qnhi4m , bit.ly/AgQux8 ,
bit.ly/pahc21 , bit.ly/n9tpeK , bit.ly/WsptzJ , bit.ly/PlTBbQ ,
bit.ly/154jl4z , bit.ly/Qku4E8 , bit.ly/JAVQKZ , bit.ly/Kr7etP ,
bit.ly/1fjxZNz The evidence shows that it is an untrustworthy blog.

But
setting that aside, neither Richardson’s paper nor any of the other
attempted refutations even addressed the main issue of Humlum’s paper,
the phase relationship between CO2 and global
temperature. They were all focused on human vs. anthropogenic CO2, which
was an inconsequential and really irrelevant aspect of Humlum’s paper,
‘The phase relation between atmospheric carbon
dioxide and global temperature’.
So all those so-called rebuttals
rebutted none of the fundamental conclusion of the paper that
temperature changes preceded CO2 changes. And none of the so-called
rebuttals presented any evidence that CO2 led temperature changes. They
were mere handwaving, which allowed the IPCC to ignore Humlum’s paper.

Thus
there was no reason for anyone to rebut the so-called rebuttals,
because they didn’t refute the main conclusions of the paper, that
changes in temperature preceded changes in CO2. And as I said, a cause
must come before the effect, so the empirical data shows that
temperature changes drive and cause changes in CO2, not the other way
around. Thus you climate alarmists have the cause and effect reversed.
Your whole human-caused climate change meme fails.

!!!I am not deleting my posts. They are being marked as spam. I have zero control over it. It’s impo to get disqus to fix it. FFS please stop being so petty and accusing me of deleting them because I can’t take criticism.
Here is my comment reposted again.

First, I think it’s unhelpful to conflate the Harde/Köhler situation with material from other papers that is not directly relevant. It’s all related to climate change of course, but Humlum is not trying to make the point that what Harde was. Humlum is not a defence of Köhler, so unless you have anything that is, then let’s leave that to one side. Harde made some assertions. The same journal later published another paper that refuted it fairly fundamentally. No one has since come to Harde’s aid to stand up his methods or conclusions AFAIK.
So onto Humlum. Well, remarkably, it looks like a similar story with a different cast of characters. The Humlum paper got panned by Richardson 2013. Again both papers published in the same (seemingly not so well edited) journal. It’s modest impact factor will be on the skids if they keep this up. Anyway, here is Richardson 2013.http://www.sciencedirect.co…
Richardson is actually one of the authors on SkepticalScience.com so he did a fairly comprehensive write up of his own paper herehttps://www.skepticalscienc…
The criticisms are not trivial. Highlights
•Humlum et al.’s conclusion of natural CO2 rise since 1980 not supported by the data
•Their use of differentiated time series removes long term contributions.
•This conclusion violates conservation of mass.
•Further analysis shows that the natural contribution is indistinguishable from zero.
•The calculated human contribution is sufficient to explain the entire rise.
So, again, if anyone has come to Humlum’s aid or knocked down Richardson’s rebuttal (which amount to the same thing) then let me know. But it looks like it would be unwise to rely on Humlum when his conclusions have been fundamentally attacked and no other group or author can stand up his claims again. If you have a paper that does, hopefully not in Global and Planetary Change as it seems rather error prone, then do point me at it.

And I see another of your comments has been deleted.
Perhaps Disqus has perfected an honesty filter and it filtered out your most recent comment because it contained blatant lies. In any event, it was spam, as it contained no valid content.

Here’s my reply to it, with quotes of parts of your comment:

“I did not accuse you of conflating Harde and Humlum.”
That’s a blatant lie: You said: “I think it’s unhelpful to conflate the Harde/Köhler situation with material from other papers that is not directly relevant. It’s all related to climate change of course, but Humlum is not trying to make the point that what Harde was.”
That is clearly accusing me of conflating Harde and Humlum.

“I said that citing Humlum to defend Humlum is not helpful”
That’s another lie. You never said that. And I never tried to cite Humlum to defend Humlum. You are just making stuff up.

“If Richardson’s paper was not worthy of publication then how did it make it into the same journal as Humlum.”
Could be pal review.
Could be because Richardson’s attempted rebuttal was about human-vs-natural CO2, not the phase relationship which was the main point of Humlum’s paper.

Next you posted a lot of verbosity claiming that Richardson did refute Humlum’s phase relationship between CO2 and temperature, but it was totally false. And you totally fail to mention that neither Richardson or anyone else presented any data that showed that CO2 preceded changes in temperature.
So the fact remains that no paper has rebutted Humlum(2013)’s conclusion that in all the temperature records temperature change precedes CO2 changes. That is totally independent of what the source of CO2 is.
And since a cause must come before the effect, that debunks you climate alarmists’ claim that CO2 has been the primary cause of recent climate warming.

“does that mean that methane is not a GHG?”
More logically fallacious strawman argumentation. No one is claiming that CO2 is not a GHG.
Youhave totally failed to refute anything that anyone has posted here. You appear to be just trolling to defend your climate alarmist religious beliefs with jihadist zeal just like Dr. Lindzen said climate alarmists do. Sad.

MichaelR
January 5, 2018 at 12:35 PM

So the now customary repost…

I did not accuse you of conflating Harde and Humlum. I said that citing Humlum to defend Humlum is not helpful. At the very least you are just changing the subject without a good reason. We were talking about Harde. I cited the rebuttal. Your next move in that conversation was to switch the conversation to another paper by Humlum that is nothing to do with Harde’s hypothesis. That is not helpful.
As to the Richardson paper, I did not cite SkepticalScience as the paper rebutting Humlum. I cited it as it gives a quick summary of the paper that rebuts Humlum. It’s reasonable to mention it as it was written by the author of the paper and it gives addition context. If Richardson’s paper was not worthy of publication then how did it make it into the same journal as Humlum.
As for the rebuttal of the lag issue that you cite, Richardson addresses that directly. I will quote the SS page as it’s more concise.
“But what about Humlum et al’s calculations showing that there is a correlation between natural CO2 and atmospheric CO2? I find that as well, but while Humlum et al only report the ‘correlation coefficient’, I go a bit further. ‘Correlation’ just means that two things change in the same direction as each other – when one goes up, the other goes up and vice versa. It doesn’t say whether it’s a big change or a tiny one.
I calculate the strength of the relationship between the two and find that for every degree Celsius that temperatures go up, the CO2 in the air later goes up by 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Humlum et al didn’t report this number, but the 50 ppm rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1980 would need a 30 C (over 50 F) rise in average temperatures rather than the half a degree C we’ve seen. That’s like warming from Greenland to Miami rather than the 0.5 C warming we’ve measured since 1980.”
I would add that it is not the first time that warming has caused CO2 increases. It’s just that it’s vitally important to get the quantitative part right. Effectively, outgassing of CO2 from the oceans is a positive feedback effect. Richardson demonstrates that Humlum gets this very badly wrong.
It’s like what happened at the end of the last ice age, the Milankovich cycle caused a small temp rise of the atmosphere. Then the oceans started slowly outgassing CO2 as a response. Then the CO2 started causing warming, and so a positive feedback cycle kicked in that was sufficient to melt most of the planet’s ice cover.
For comparison, you could consider methane as well. Now methane is a very powerful GHG. But warming actually causes it’s release from the permafrost. So if you observe warming, then methane appearing, does that mean that methane is not a GHG? Of course not. In the case of CO2, yes, a small amount of CO2 is released by warming due to oceanic outgassing, but it’s tiny compared to the man made contribution.

Thanks for more evidence that you are nothing more than a climate alarmist troll.

MichaelR
January 5, 2018 at 12:40 PM

First then, a mea culpa. I did accuse you of conflating Harde/köhler with Humlum. My mistake.
I think I was right first time. You did. At least you did cite a paper that was nothing to do with Harde’s assertions to back him up.

When I said “but Humlum is not trying to make the point that what Harde was.”, that is me saying that citing Humlum to defend Humlum is not helpful. It’s implied. I will try to be more clear next time.

Richardson does address the phase relationship directly. I will quote him again.
“But what about Humlum et al’s calculations showing that there is a correlation between natural CO2 and atmospheric CO2? I find that as well, but while Humlum et al only report the ‘correlation coefficient’, I go a bit further. ‘Correlation’ just means that two things change in the same direction as each other – when one goes up, the other goes up and vice versa. It doesn’t say whether it’s a big change or a tiny one.
I calculate the strength of the relationship between the two and find that for every degree Celsius that temperatures go up, the CO2 in the air later goes up by 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Humlum et al didn’t report this number, but the 50 ppm rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1980 would need a 30 C (over 50 F) rise in average temperatures rather than the half a degree C we’ve seen. That’s like warming from Greenland to Miami rather than the 0.5 C warming we’ve measured since 1980.”

He is saying, yes, warming causes CO2, just very little. And the amount that we see could not have come from the mechanisms that are triggered by warming.

And I am glad that you agree that CO2 is a GHG. I presume you just think it is a very weak one?
In any case, I wish that was a more widely held belief. I have had plenty of conversations on this site where people deny that.

Does David accept that fact?

RealOldOne2
January 5, 2018 at 2:01 PM

“You did.”
You are lying. I never conflated Harde/Kohler with Humlum.
Humlum was a totally separate point. No where in my Humlum post did I refer to Harde/Kohler.

“It’s implied”
You are lying again. It’s not implied at all.

“Richardson does address the phase relationship directly”
You are lying again. All he said was: “when one goes up the other goes up” He explicitly said he was talking about ” ‘Corellation’ “. He made no argument at all about the phase relation, ie. which happens first.
He provided no data to show that CO2 changes happened before temperature, so neither Richardson nor anyone else refuted Humlum’s point that changes in CO2 lagged changes in temperature. THAT was the main point of Humlum’s paper, and it has NEVER been refuted.

You’ve refuted nothing posted in the original article nor in anyone’s comments. You are just trolling.
Now stop your trolling and stop your lying.

MichaelR
January 5, 2018 at 2:30 PM

Richardson does talk about the lag. It’s right there. He says

“I calculate the strength of the relationship between the two and find that for every degree Celsius that temperatures go up, the CO2 in the air later goes up by 1.9 parts per million (ppm).”

That is a statement about CO2 lagging temperature increase that you say he doesn’t make. He agrees it happens, but just very very little, and certainly not enough to explain the observed increase in CO2.

I gave the example of the end of the last ice age to illustrate this on a bigger scale. CO2 does get released when the temperatures rise, as does methane. But that does not rule out it being a cause of warming as well.

And can I please ask you to stop calling me a liar. It’s pretty undignified. If you think I am mistaken then say I am wrong or I am mistaken but lying carries the deliberate intention to deceive and is highly pejorative. I think any objective reader would conclude that I am making statements in good faith. You showed me that I contradicted myself. I apologised without hesitation. I am not lying. If you disagree with me, that’s fine – knock yourself out, just stop insulting me please. It is uncalled for and you are the only person here doing it.

RealOldOne2
January 5, 2018 at 6:59 PM

“Richardson does talk about the lag”
When I say that Richardson didn’t address Humlum’s phase relation, that means he didn’t present any evidence to refute it, like you claim he did. The fact is, Richardson agrees with Humlum that CO2 lags temperature, so there is no way that he refuted Humlum’s main point that CO2 lags temperature in the various temperature records.

So the fact remains that neither Richardson nor anyone else refuted Humlum’s main point that temperature changes first, THEN CO2 changes later, so the the main point of Humlum’s paper has never been refuted.
I don’t know why you continue to beat this dead horse. That’s evidence of trolling.

I pointed out your mistake in arguing about the total OHC multiple times. You continue to cling to that false argument, thus you have turned your mistake into a lie.
You have not tried to refute my argument that global OHC is irrelevant. That would be valid. But to just keep using your debunked argument is dishonest.

You’ve done the same thing about the imagined Harde/Kohler – Humlum conflation. Once I told you that it was a totally different point, your continuing to raise that issue is dishonest, a lie.

Give it a rest. If you want to talk substance, ok. Just don’t continue to beat trivial dead horses that are irrelevant non-issues. It makes you appear quite childish.

MichaelR
January 5, 2018 at 2:45 PM

Btw, you said:
“You are lying. I never conflated Harde/Kohler with Humlum.
Humlum was a totally separate point. No where in my Humlum post did I refer to Harde/Kohler.”

Look above. It’s right there. I quote you:

“Again, you are ignoring the fatal flaw of Kohler, the assumption that the only cause of changes in CO2 is human perturbation. The history of the planet shows that is not true. And recent empirical data also shows that is not true, as the levels of CO2 are constantly changing, and the changes are tied to temperature changes, not the fairly steady release of CO2 by humans. [All about Harde/Köhler]

Plus, the this empirical data shows that CO2 lags temperature changes. Thus climate alarmists have the cause and effect reversed. The cause much come before the effect…. [then you go onto extensively quote Humlum]”

So again, you are resorting to calling me a liar over something which would be pretty trivial, but you are mistaken that I was wrong and you also impute my imagined mistake with the intent to deceive. Can you accept that this kind of abuse is not justified?

RealOldOne2
January 5, 2018 at 7:00 PM

How many times do I have to tell you that my Humlum phase relation statement was a totally different point than the Harde/Koher discussion. Nowhere in my Humlum discussion did I argue or even mention Harde. You continue to beat that dead horse. Drop it.

“you are resorting to calling me a liar over something which would be pretty trivial, but you are still mistaken that I was wrong and you also impute my imagined mistake with the intent to deceive.”
Come on. I have told you that I raised Humlum was a totally separate issue/point about a different error of you climate alarmists. Why do you refuse to accept that?

And nowhere in my separate Humlum point did I argue it had anything to do with Harde/Humlum. I never even mentioned Harde/Kohler. They were two separate issues/points. Give it a rest.

Yet now you continue to deny that you were wrong in claiming I conflated the two. You are just confirming that you are trolling, beating a trivial dead horse. Quite pathetic and childish.

MichaelR
January 6, 2018 at 4:27 AM

Ok, I accept that you don’t think Humlum supports Harde, although of course I acknowledge that you would say they both attack AGW, though from different sides.

I did not make any mistakes intentionally. You’ll just have to trust me on that, just like you did not intentionally make a error when you that your Humlum post did not mention Harde/Köhler. I believe that you are arguing honestly. You should by now be able to believe the same about me. Mistakes happen. I prefer that they are just pointed out in a civil manner. You can’t see into my mind and I can’t see into yours. I propose that in future we give onanother the benefit of the doubt over intentions when we make mistakes.

And I am not trolling. You need to stop accusing me of that just like you need to stop accusing me of lying. I am pointing out what look like factual or logical errors in articles on this site, or in the comments. I am sure you don’t want or expect the comments here to be a total echo chamber of self congratulating self confirming bias. I read sceptic sites and I read non-sceptic sites and I comment on both. I am not abusive. I am not intentionally deceiving or misleading. I am not off topic, I am not making ad hominem comments. I am not setting out to annoy people although I accept that this can be the effect of challenging people’s beliefs – but that’s not my fault or my problem while I do so I’m a civil and genuine manner.

I am setting out to challenge what look to me like bad ideas, and doing so in a civil and polite manner. I believe you are perfectly content to defend your position, as are most readers and commenters on this site. If I don’t accept your arguments I will give reasons. You don’t get to call me a troll for just finding fault in your arguments or those of the authors of the articles. And if you keep dismissing my criticisms as blather rather than actually showing where I am wrong, then it’s not reasonable to expect me to back off until you have properly falsified my argument, or acknowledged my argument is valid or said that you don’t know.

Your personal style of dismissing and trying to belittle people who disagree with you (which is quite specific to you on this site btw) does you and your arguments no favours. Calling me childish, pathetic, an irrational zealot and a liar is not advancing your argument one iota and yet you drop one or more of these epithets into almost every comment to me. It only does the opposite and makes you appear hypersensitive about your opinions like they are a delicate flower than cannot stand up to attack. I am not saying that is what they are – I am saying that is how you make them appear. For avoidance of doubt, I am not making a comment about your integrity or character, just your style of debate. I trust you will accept my comments in the good faith that they are made.

MichaelR
January 6, 2018 at 4:30 AM

Just one last thing, I don’t know that I accept that last definition of a lie as an error that is clung to. If you or I do not understand why our belief is an error then we will continue to propound that belief until we do understand it’s error. We will propound it in good faith as our true belief on the matter.
Only a false statement made deliberately to mislead or deceive deserves to be called a lie.

MichaelR
January 5, 2018 at 9:07 AM

So to respond to your response to missing comment,

I did not accuse you of conflating Harde and Humlum. I said that citing Humlum to defend Humlum is not helpful. At the very least you are just changing the subject without a good reason. We were talking about Harde. I cited the rebuttal. Your next move in that conversation was to switch the conversation to another paper by Humlum that is nothing to do with Harde’s hypothesis. That is not helpful.

As to the Richardson paper, I did not cite SkepticalScience as the paper rebutting Humlum. I cited it as it gives a quick summary of the paper that rebuts Humlum. It’s reasonable to mention it as it was written by the author of the paper and it gives addition context. If Richardson’s paper was not worthy of publication then how did it make it into the same journal as Humlum.

As for the rebuttal of the lag issue that you cite, Richardson addresses that directly. I will quote the SS page as it’s more concise.

“But what about Humlum et al’s calculations showing that there is a correlation between natural CO2 and atmospheric CO2? I find that as well, but while Humlum et al only report the ‘correlation coefficient’, I go a bit further. ‘Correlation’ just means that two things change in the same direction as each other – when one goes up, the other goes up and vice versa. It doesn’t say whether it’s a big change or a tiny one.

I calculate the strength of the relationship between the two and find that for every degree Celsius that temperatures go up, the CO2 in the air later goes up by 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Humlum et al didn’t report this number, but the 50 ppm rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1980 would need a 30 C (over 50 F) rise in average temperatures rather than the half a degree C we’ve seen. That’s like warming from Greenland to Miami rather than the 0.5 C warming we’ve measured since 1980.”

I would add that it is not the first time that warming has caused CO2 increases. It’s just that it’s vitally important to get the quantitative part right. Effectively, outgassing of CO2 from the oceans is a positive feedback effect. Richardson demonstrates that Humlum gets this very badly wrong.

It’s like what happened at the end of the last ice age, the Milankovich cycle caused a small temp rise of the atmosphere. Then the oceans started slowly outgassing CO2 as a response. Then the CO2 started causing warming, and so a positive feedback cycle kicked in that was sufficient to melt most of the planet’s ice cover.

For comparison, you could consider methane as well. Now methane is a very powerful GHG. But warming actually causes it’s release from the permafrost. So if you observe warming, then methane appearing, does that mean that methane is not a GHG? Of course not. In this case, a small amount of CO2 is released by warming, but it’s tiny compared to the man made contribution.

Ian5
January 6, 2018 at 10:41 PM

Makes accusation of cherry-picking, then provides a single 60-year old paper and some astrology.

RealOldOne2
January 7, 2018 at 1:42 AM

“Makes accusation of cherry-picking”
An accusation supported by the evidence pointed out in the peer reviewed paper. When someone uses only the circled values and ignores all those other higher values it IS cherry picking.

“then provides a single 60-year old paper and some astrology.”
The 60-year old paper was relevant because is was a graphic confirmation of Beck(2007)’s paper which shows that there have been many previous direct atmospheric CO2 measurements higher than present levels.

And astrology? No, you are the believer in climastrology.

Ian5
January 7, 2018 at 1:19 PM

Rubbish and intentionally misleading. Your focus on a single 60-year old paper is laughable. Yet you can’t refute the evidence that human-caused GHG emissions are increasing atmospheric CO2. Go and spend some time at the Scripps Institute and then come back and tell us what you learned.

RealOldOne2
January 7, 2018 at 2:32 PM

“Rubbish and intentionally misleading”
No, factually correct and relevant to your comment by showing previous direct CO2 measurements of over 400ppm which were natural.

“Your focus on a single 60-year old paper is laughable.”
No, I cited two peer reviewed papers, and that was all that was necessary to answer show that your chart was intentionally misleading because it didn’t include many higher CO2 levels which would have made your whole chart and comment pointless.

What’s laughable is your hypocrisy in criticizing me for citing a relevant 60-year old paper which includes still valid empirical CO2 data from the mid-1900s and 1800s that supports Beck’s 2007 paper, when you climate alarmists cite Arrhenius’ 1896 paper.

“Yet you can’t refute the evidence that human-caused GHG emissions are increasing atmospheric CO2”
Beck(2007) and Fonsellius(1956) show that today’s levels are no higher than previous natural levels. Your claim is moot.

Ian5
January 7, 2018 at 3:03 PM

You know perfectly well that it isn’t my chart. It comes from Scripps Institute of Oceanography and represents the longest running continuous measurements of atmospheric CO2. And you suggest it is misleading? All you have provided is a reference to 2 papers -as though they somehow undermine the direct evidence of rising CO2. Keeling and Meijer refuted the findings of Becks 2007 paper and you know that too. You cling to a 60+ year old paper and a 10+ year old paper while systematically dismissing the direct evidence and current literature on atmospheric C02. Shameful dishonesty.

RealOldOne2
January 7, 2018 at 5:06 PM

It’s shamefully dishonest to deny the reality of hundreds of previous direct atmospheric measurements of CO2 above 400ppm. But that’s what your climate alarmist movement must do in order to promote their false narrative that CO2 is higher than it’s ever been before, and that CO2 is the primary cause of climate warming, when the empirical evidence shows that is not true. Sad.

Ian5
January 7, 2018 at 7:43 PM

Instead of clinging dishonestly to your single 60-year old article over the scientific literature, why don’t you take your misleading fluff, march into the Scripps Institute and refute their 60 years data and “false narrative”. 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA. Then come back and tell us what you learned.

BigWaveDave
January 8, 2018 at 2:52 AM

The solar influx to the oceans is the likely cause of the corresponding atmospheric CO2 increase.

Li D
January 3, 2018 at 6:44 AM

“…there is no known way that the gradual CO2 increase could have caused this giant El Nino-La Nina cycle.

Thus the little warming that there is in the last 40 years appears to be more or less entirely natural. ”
My god this is some classic conflationary crap. The conclusion is absurd and unrelated to the evidence postulated.
A travesty. Its about the furthest thing from science i have ever read ever.
If its not immediatly clear to readers how stupid this is , rewrite the guff without changing the meaning. Ie. The warming we have seen recently is entirely natural because CO2 levels havnt been shown to cause large el ninos. Hahahaha
Jeez fella, you need some schooling on conclusions that are allowable from evidence and why.
This thought process would be embarrassing to a 10 year old Australian school kid in grade 4.
And you got a doctorate in logic!!!
Dont take my word but .
Show your academic peers your rationale here and see if they got any issues with it. Show your family and friends . Go into a pub and show a drunkard. They all will tell ya.

Its almost Pythonesqe absurdity.

David Wojick
January 3, 2018 at 11:36 AM

Do you have an actual scientific point to make? This looks like semi-solid bombast to me. Can you hypothesize how the steady CO2 buildup created the giant El Nino? Some sort of newly discovered oceanic heat capacitor perhaps?

The basic logic is simple. All of the warming is caused by the giant El Nino. El Ninos are natural. Therefore all of the warming is natural. Sorry if this is too subtle for you.

MichaelR
January 4, 2018 at 4:50 AM

David,
First, as you should know, the UAH6 dataset was released with a trend anomaly of +0.114 degrees per decade by the group themselves. Sure, this is lower than RSS4 which is more like 0.2 degrees per decade but you are contradicting the UAH group themselves to say there is no warming. Then there are all the ground based datasets as well of course. Why aren’t you talking about them?

Again, ground based readings also record warming at about 1.9 degrees per decade.

So, stop cherry picking UAH6 when there are several other datasets and UAH6 just happens to be the lowest outlier. If you take an average across all the major datasets you get an anomaly well above 0.15 degrees per decade. Even if you insist on cherry picking, then don’t dream up your own cooling theory when the group themselves state that there is a cooling trend. You are completely making crap up without anything to back your assertions.

Second, as we have discussed before, El Niño cycles transfer energy back and forth. So you would need to show a net loss of energy in the oceans after the large El Niño in 1998 that you point to. But all the observations show ocean average temperature is also rising, it did NOT show a net loss of energy after that large El Niño cycle that you imply. So the energy of the whole system is increasing. Again, you can’t say “the oceans did it!” without showing that the oceans were cooler in 2000 than they were in 1996. In fact, of course, the oppposite is true. The oceans were also warmer in 2000 than 1996. Indeed the total heat content of the oceans shows a strong warming trend.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/figures/doi/10.1029/2008GL037155#figure-viewer-grl25702-fig-0001
Taken fromhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037155/full

So your little hypothesis that the atmosphere was warmer after the 98 El Niño because the oceans cooled is a complete non starter.

David Wojick
January 4, 2018 at 11:22 AM

I am fascinated by alarmist’s apparent inability to understand what I am saying. I never said there is no warming, rather that the warming there is, is all coincident with the giant El Nino cycle. Hence it is natural.

The reason I am not talking about the ground based statistical models is explained in the article and the link provided. Those temperature estimates are worthless.

Beyond that, RSS uses a climate model to adjust its estimates so I consider it questionable, which is why I use UAH.

Given that I use the entire UAH record there is no cherry picking. Put another way, if using all of the data is cherry picking, then all data analysis is cherry picking, which is absurd.

El Nino’s do not cool the ocean. That is not where the heat comes from. An El NIno is a temporary cessation of cold water upwelling along the west coast of South America. Given this lack of cold surface water, more heat goes into the air.

RealOldOne2
January 4, 2018 at 2:43 PM

I see that Michael made a reply and then immediately deleted it, probably so no one could reply and point out his erroneous claims and false logic.

Since I went to the trouble of commenting on it, i’ll include it here:

“So in a constant energy system…”
The earth is never a constant energy system. It is hugely dynamic, constantly changing locally, regionally and globally.

That’s a fundamental error of climate alarmists who try to blame all climate change on humans and human CO2. They assume that without humans, the climate would be constant.

And Michael, the ground-based temperature record is a sham and does not represent any valid change over time.
That’s because it only covers a miniscule portion of the earth’s atmosphere compared to the satellite record which measures ~99% of the lower atmosphere.
That’s because the temperature stations are not consistent over the period of the record, so is an apples and oranges comparison over time.
That’s because the temperature record is not the actual measured temperatures, but adjusted numbers which are not made because of actual station metadata changes.

Here are more reasons the satellite temperature record is vastly superior to the land-based temperature records:
• “Satellites provide global coverage at much higher densities than attainable with in situ observations. In situ observations also suffer from non-uniform temporal coverage and undocumented changes in the instrumentation used that can lead to local biases and increased uncertainty.” – Carl Mears, responsible for the RSS temperature record http://remss.com/missions/amsu

• According to NASA, the satellite temperature measurements have been verified as being accurate to 0.03C: “The temperature measurements from space are verified by two direct andindependent methods. The first involves actual in-situ measurements of the lower atmosphere made by balloon-borne observations around the world. The second uses intercalibration and comparison between two identical experiments on different orbiting platforms. The result is that the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements over the same region of the atmosphere at the same time.” NASA, http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/

• “thermometers cannot measure global averages – only satellites can. The satellite instruments measure nearly every cubic kilometer – … – of the lower atmosphere on a daily basis. You can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometers without finding a thermometer nearby. … The thermometer network is made up of a patchwork of non-research quality instruments that were never meant to monitor long-term temperature changes to tenths or hundredths of a degree, and the huge data voids around the world are either ignored or in-filled with fictitious data. … Satellite microwave radiometers, however, are equipped with laboratory-calibrated platinum resistance thermometers, which have demonstrated stability to thousandths of a degree over many years, and which are used to continuously calibrate the satellite instruments every 8 seconds.” – Roy Spencer, responsible for the UAH temperature record, http://drroyspencer.com/2014/10/why-2014-wont-be-the-warmest-year-on-record/

3) historical temperature values in the NASA dataset change on a monthly basis, based on blanket-applied computerized algorithms, not on actual station-by-station documented changes in instrumentation or other factors. This essentially renders duplication of scientific conclusions meaningless, since a correct conclusion using the dataset a year ago may no longer be correct now, because the historical data has changed. This is a sham and corrupts science.

4) the measurements are not temporally stable over time as the stations in the datasets constantly change over time periods you are comparing apples and oranges

5) the measured temperatures are contaminated by Urban Heat Island Effect which exaggerates the warming. Urbanization has caused many station moves to surrounding cooler areas as cities have grown. This exaggerates warming trends as has been shown by peer reviewed science, Zhang(2014) ‘The effect of data homogenization on estimate of temperature trend’. Figure 6 of this paper shows the exaggerated warming caused by station moves: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/zhang_et_al_homogenization_china_fig6.png

6) the actual measured data are not included, only numbers which have been corrupted by improper adjustments for UHI, as those adjustments are backwards. For example, NASA has measured a recent UHI effect in Providence, RI of 12C. The “adjustments” in the temperature record have cooled the century-ago temperatures by over 2C. This is backwards for UHI.

7) The land based measuring stations measure the temperature a few m³ of the Earth’s atmosphere at each of those stations, a total of ~10,000 m³, while the satellites measure ~2,000,000,000,000,000,000 m³ of the Earth’s atmosphere.

MichaelR
January 4, 2018 at 3:18 PM

Well I see my reposted comment at least. Go figure.
First, if you want to copy paste a giant bunch of text, you are find to just point me at the page. Scouts honour I will do my best to read it.

On the temp stats, I did not say any dataset was better, I just said that ground based measurements should be ignored. Given the GIS lines up with RSS most of the time, they can’t be that bad.

Anyway, back to the main point.
The climate and oceans are a dynamic system. I get it. But the numbers I am talking about are not regional – they are global. The temp data is global average temperature. The ocean date is total heat content of the entire ocean. There is no place to “hide” energy or to suddenly gain energy from. The total energy in the atmosphere plus the total energy in the ocean is the total energy of the atmosphere/ocean system. This is an implicit but unavoidable assumption of David’s argument.

So, unless you add or remove energy, if one warms the other must cool. But in reality, they both warm… so the energy of the whole system is not constant. It is increasing. How do YOU account for the additional energy in the global atmosphere/ocean system?

RealOldOne2
January 4, 2018 at 4:16 PM

I include the key text from sources so that people who don’t want to click on links can see the key arguments. I also provide the links which shows what I say is supported by science.

“Given that the GIS lines up with RSS most of the time, they can’t be that bad.”
GISS is the most improperly adjusted dataset, as it starts with the improperly adjusted GHCN dataset, and then adds even more undocumented adjustments. And an analysis of the adjustments shows that they are made to line up with CO2 changes, and then they are used to claim that CO2 drives temperature changes. Total circular reasoning. Documented here: https://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/

“The ocean data is total heat content of the entire ocean”
Your whole OHC argument is irrelevant to your CO2-driven climate change meme because the only physical heat exchange process that adds heat to the ocean is solar radiation.

And in addition, peer reviewed science shows that during the late 20th century warming, the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface increased by 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m². That is ~10 times larger than the increase in CO2 forcing during that timeframe.

More clear evidence that natural climate forcing is still the primary cause of climate warming, just as it has been throughout the history of the planet.

MichaelR
January 4, 2018 at 4:48 PM

[“The ocean data is total heat content of the entire ocean”
Your whole OHC argument is irrelevant to your CO2-driven climate change meme because the only physical heat exchange process that adds heat to the ocean is solar radiation.]

But I wasn’t trying to say anything about CO2. I was trying to falsify David’s assertion that the reason for the temp difference before and after the El Niño WAS the El Niño event. Read the article. He is out and out saying that the large El Niño explains why atmosphere temps were higher after than before in the UAH6 data.

[“How do YOU account for the additional energy in the global atmosphere/ocean system?”
The additional energy in the system is due to the Sun, which is the only source of energy that transfers heat to the climate system. During the last several decades, the mean level of solar irradiance has been the highest in the previous 4 centuries:]

Ok, so first let’s note that you agree that there is more energy than before. That means that like me, you don’t buy David’s logic that the higher temps in the atmosphere after the 1998 El Niño were due to the energy being released by the ocean during and not fully reabsorbed afterwards. So that’s good. I am glad we agree because it was a daft argument and clearly not bourne out by the data.

So then we are onto the older and well rehearsed argument that “it was the sun, stupid”.
Ok, fine. I mean I don’t agree as you know, but I don’t care to argue about it here as that argument has nothing to do with David’s article, so we don’t need to go around the houses with that totally unrelated argument here. If I have not had that argument with you already I have had it with someone else at least once… Let’s face it. If every comments section under every article turns into a general debate about ALL facets of climate change science and scepticism then it does get tiresome.

RealOldOne2
January 4, 2018 at 7:17 PM

“He is out and out saying that the large El Nino explains why atmosphere temps wer higher after than before in the UAH6 data.”
And David Wojick is correct, because El Ninos release stored solar energy from the ocean to the atmosphere. This is a universally accepted fact. I don’t know why you deny it. Here is what Columbia Univ. Earth Institute says:

“El Nino and Global Warming – What’s the Connection … Although El Nino’s strongest impacts are found around the equatorial Pacific, they can affect weather around the world by influencing high and low pressure systems, winds and precipitation. And as the warmer ocean waters release excess energy (heat) into the atmosphere, global temperatures rise.” – Columbia Univ. Earth Institute, http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2016/02/02/el-nino-and-global-warming-whats-the-connection/

“That means that like me, you don’t buy David’s logic that the higher temps in the atmosphere after the 1998 El Nino were due to the energy being released by the ocean during and not fully reabsorbed afterwards.”
I do buy David’s logic, because as I just pointed out, El Ninos release stored solar energy from the ocean to the atmosphere.

” “it was the sun, stupid”. Ok, fine. I mean I don’t agree as you know, but I don’t care to argue about it here as that argument has nothing to do with David’s article.”
You may disagree, but the empirical data shows that you are wrong.
And you are also wrong that it has nothing to do with David’s article. It is integral to David’s article, because David’s claim that there has been CO2 warming over the last 40 years raises the obvious question, well then what did cause the warming over the last 40 years. And David addressed that question in his article when he said: “Thus the little warming that there is in the last 40 years appears to be more or less entirely natural.”
So the the issue of solar radiation is entirely relevant, because empirical data shows that it is the natural climate factor that has driven the warming.

I suspect that you don’t want to address the solar radiation is that I have posted enough data that you know you can’t refute it. Maybe that’s not the reason, but regardless, the data does show that solar radiation is the primary cause of the warming, since peer reviewed science shows that the increase in solar forcing at the surface is ~10 times more than the increase in CO2 forcing was.

MichaelR
January 5, 2018 at 2:33 AM

Look, you can’t have it both ways.

The point of this article is to explain away the increase in atmospheric temperature after 1998 by saying it was caused by the El Niño event in 1998. David does NOT say anything about solar irradiance.

I never said that El Niño events don’t release energy from the ocean to the atmosphere.

I said that in an El Niño event you see a transfer of energy from the ocean to the atmosphere and therefore total heat content of the ocean dips, and that is true and observed.

But after the whole 1998 El Niño cycle, the atmosphere remained warmer than before it (as accepted by David). His explanation is that the El Niño cycle CAUSED that rise ie that the atmosphere retained some of that heat. That is what the whole freaking hypothesis is in the article, and in David comments to me above. He says in the article “The simplest explanation is that the second aperiodic period is warmer than the first because of the El Niño effect. Perhaps some heat was injected into the atmosphere that remained, thereby increasing the baseline for the next aperiodic oscillator.“

That would require that the ocean energy would have to be lower after this El Niño than before it, according to conservation of energy.

But it isnt. The heat content of the ocean after the El Niño event is slightly higher. So David’s hypothesis cannot be true. There was a net increase in energy across the period.

You account for that increase due to solar irradiance. As I said, I don’t care to argue about that here but it at least is consistent with the time total energy increase that we observe.

But the point is that David’s whole hypothesis implicitly denies any increase in energy (aka warming) at all. Otherwise why all this focus on the El Niño event at all? If he accepts warming due to solar irradiance then why does he not just say THAT, rather than all this fixation on the El Niño event. Read the article again if you think I am making a straw man. I am not.

RealOldOne2
January 5, 2018 at 11:29 AM

“Look you can’t have it both ways”
You are being totally illogical. How old are you?

“The point of this article is to explain away the increase in atmospheric temperature by saying it was caused by the El Nino event in 1998.”
Do you realize how what you said is a total logic FAIL?
Trying to explain away a temperature rise by saying what caused a temperature rise? Again, how old are you?

“David does NOT say anything about solar irradiance”
You are just handwaving. It’s irrelevant that David didn’t say anything about solar irradiance, because David DID say the warming was natural. I was on-topic because I was posting data which showed that increases solar radiation can explain what the natural cause is. It appears that you just want to deny that.

“and therefore total heat content of the ocean dips”
Not necessarily, since the heat transferred from the ocean comes from a very specific area in the equatorial Pacific. The data clearly shows that the OHC there DOES decrease. So the total OHC change after an El Nino proves nothing about the El Nino event because solar radiation can be increasing elsewhere in the global oceans.

You are the one contradicting yourself, because on one hand you said: “I was trying to falsify David’s assertion that the reason for the temp difference before and after the El Nino event was the El Nino event”

Now after I provide you a source that clearly says the El Nino events to cause an increase in global temps, you tell me: “I never said that El Nino events don’t release energy from the ocean to the atmosphere”.

You seem to be hopelessly confused, and are just arguing because you don’t want to accept the fact that the empirical data doesn’t show that CO2 has caused any significant warming.

The rest of your comment is moot because it is based on your flawed logic of total global OHC, which I have exposed is faulty.

“But the whole point is that David’s whole hypothesis implicitly denies any increase in energy (aka warming) at all.”
That is blatantly false, because David EXPLICITLY states: “Thus the little warming that there is in the last 40 years appears to be more or less entirely natural.”

Jeez, I am not confused. You are not getting my point or you just want to dissemble until I give up.

David does not think that any warming took place. His explanation for why the global average temperature after the El Niño was higher than before is as follows:

“The simplest explanation is that the second flat aperiodic period is warmer than the first because of the El Nino effect. Perhaps some heat was injected into the atmosphere [from the ocean] that remained, thereby increasing the baseline for the next aperiodic oscillator.”

So if that was true, and there is no warming going on, then the oceans have to lose heat as it’s now in the atmosphere causing the observed temperature increase. Regional effects in the Pacific do not effect the THC of the ocean.

But we do not see that. We see the energy content of the ocean higher afterwards than before. So both the atmosphere and the ocean are warmer.

So is there warming or isn’t there?

If there is, then why is David using the El Niño to explain the warmer atmospheric temperatures, as he does in the paragraph that I quoted?

I don’t know if it will help, but let’s try some arbitrary numbers.

Let’s say that in 1997 the atmosphere contains 1000 units of energy and the ocean contains 5000. The total energy of the system is 60

Then the El Niño happens. In 1998 the atmosphere now contains 1100 units and the ocean contains 4900. So far so good I hope.

Then afterwards, say in 2000, what we see is that the temp of the atmosphere goes nearly back to where it was but not quite, so it now contains 1020 units.

Then, in a no-warming scenario, then the ocean must contain 4980.
But in fact, when we measure the total energy content of the ocean, we find it contains 5020.

So now the total energy of the system is 6040. 40 units of energy more than before.

You say the extra 40 units comes from the sun. Fine. That means warming.

David says that there was no warming. He thinks that the atmosphere retained energy from the ocean making it warmer. That is his “simplest explanation”.
But that isn’t the explanation. There is a net warming of the system overall which he either doesn’t realise or doesn’t want to talk about.

RealOldOne2
January 5, 2018 at 12:25 PM

“Jeez, I am not confused”
You are so confused, or ideologically blinded by your commitment to your climate cult religious beliefs, that you are totally detached from reality, denying what is written to you in black and white.

“David does not think that any warming took place”
Why do you continue to tell that blatant lie?
He clearly does, as his words that I quoted to you explicitly state: “Thus the little warming that there is in the last 40 years appears to be more or less entirely natural.”

Next you blather on with previoiusly debunked arguments about total OHC. You obviously didn’t study the El Nino/La Nina reference that I linked you to. You obviously ignored my previous multiple comments which debunked your total OHC argumentation.

No point in trying to have a rational discussion with someone who tells blatant lies, denies that they said what they said, falsely accuse others of saying things that they didn’t say.
You are just trolling, and wasting people’s time.
The only value in replying to you is to expose your dishonesty and totally failed arguments.

MichaelR
January 5, 2018 at 12:55 PM

This majority of this article is about the temperature difference before and after the 1998 El Niño that is observed in the UAH6 data.

“Yes there is some warming but it appears to be almost entirely coincident with the giant El Nino-La Nina cycle. The simplest explanation is that the second flat aperiodic period is warmer than the first because of the El Nino effect. Perhaps some heat was injected into the atmosphere that remained, thereby increasing the baseline for the next aperiodic oscillator.”

What you call blathering is me putting some numbers to explain why this paragraph simply does not work. Why not do your own quantitative exercise to see if you can make it work. All I am using is the atmosphere as one object (whose energy can be indicated by global average temperature) and whole ocean as another (using total ocean heat content as a direct measure of its energy content), and the El Niño driving energy transfer between them away from an equilibrium state.

You have not debunked my argument about OHC. You pointed to local cooling at the time of the event. That is irrelevant to my point which is based on total OHC and global average temperatures before and after the event.

What is weird is that you have given a more credible explanation for the rise in atmospheric temperatures in the UAH6 dataset (higher solar irradiance causing net warming) than David does, and yet you are still defending his hypothesis about this El Niño that clearly doesn’t work.

Frederick Colbourne
January 5, 2018 at 8:43 AM

“The ocean data is total heat content of the entire ocean” Usually the papers that cite ocean heat content specify the depth in meters. The thermocline is about 1000 meters, so 700 meters would give a reasonable average.

The imbalance of global energy flux is so small and the uncertainties from our best instruments is so great that measurements cannot confirm what the modelers claim is occurring now let alone what their scenarios suggest for the future.

In 2012, Loeb et al estimated that based on ocean heat content the energy imbalance was about 0.5 Watt per square meter.

Based on satellite measurements, Stephens et al. reported in 2012 that, “The net energy balance is the sum of individual fluxes. The current uncertainty in this net surface energy balance is large, and amounts to approximately 17 Wm –2 . This uncertainty is an order of magnitude [10 X] larger than the changes to the net surface fluxes associated with increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (Fig. 2b). The uncertainty is also approximately an order of magnitude larger than the current estimates of the net surface energy imbalance of 0.6 ±0.4 Wm –2 inferred from the rise in OHC…”

I conclude that climate alarmism is like Chicken Little claiming that the sky is falling.

RealOldOne2
January 5, 2018 at 10:27 AM

Thank you Frederick. I agree with everything you posted, especially your last statement.

Another key statement from Stephens paper was: “Thus the sum of current satellite-derived fluxes cannot determine the net TOA radiation imbalance with the accuracy needed to track such small imbalances associated with forced climate change.¹¹ “. Ref. 11 was to Hansen(2005) ‘Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications’, which said: “Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols, among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 watts per square meter from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years.”

So Stephens was saying that Hansen’s claim was suspect because of the large uncertainties that he found in his 2012 paper. This is consistent with your quotes from the paper.

The ARGO buoy coverage is much better, but still very sparse, with only 1 buoy about every 100,000km² of ocean.

And I would note that early on in the Argo era, the data showed ocean cooling from 2003-2005, Lyman et.al.,(2006)’Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean’: “We observe a net loss of 3.2(±1.1) x 10²² of heat from the upper ocean between 2003 and 2005.”

But that didn’t agree with the preconceived notion of ocean warming, so they began adjusting the ARGO data. This is documented in Willis(2007) ‘Correction to “Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean” ‘.

Well later global Surface Solar Radiation satellite data which has very good coverage (~99% of the Earth’s area), showed that during the 2002-2006 time period the amount of solar radiation reaching the oceans decreased by ~3W/m² in the SH, and about 1W/m² in the NH. Hatzzianastassiou et.al., (2011)’Recent regional surface solar radiation dimming and brightening patterns: inter-hemispherical asymmetry and a dimming in the Southern Hemisphere’: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b2933b97ba83a3d7a67571e60f96503210be4d91aa04c53f3523ab4f5b43ffbb.png

Another key statement is from Levitus(2012) ‘World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0-2000 m), 1955-2010’: “The World Ocean accounts for 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955.”

This is a stark admission that 93% of global warming is natural, because as I told MichaelR, the only ocean-atmosphere heat transfer process that adds heat to the oceans is solar radiation. This is confirmed by Columbia Univ. Earth and Energy Lecture ‘Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling’ – http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html .

The whole CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 meme is a house of cards built on groupthink and confirmation bias, driven by the huge sums of money from government largesse to fund SimClimate games and other mostly worthless studies.
And that’s not conspiracy theory like the climate alarmists claim. It’s reality.

MichaelR
January 5, 2018 at 2:15 PM

I have a couple of questions. You said

“Well later global Surface Solar Radiation satellite data which has very good coverage (~99% of the Earth’s area), showed that during the 2002-2006 time period the amount of solar radiation reaching the oceans decreased by ~3W/m² in the SH, and about 1W/m² in the NH. Hatzzianastassiou et.al., (2011)’Recent regional surface solar radiation dimming and brightening patterns: inter-hemispherical asymmetry and a dimming in the Southern Hemisphere’

How does that accord with increasing temperatures during that period, measured in the atmosphere and the ocean? I thought your hypothesis was that increased insulation was causing the warming but these papers are showing significantly lower insolation.

Second question. About the heating of the oceans meaning that all the warming must be nothing to do with GHGs. Well not necessarily. The page you mentioned about ocean/atmosphere interaction says this
“Conduction: When air is contact with the ocean is at a different temperature than that the sea surface; heat transfer by conduction takes place. On average the ocean is about 1 or 2 degrees warmer than the atmosphere so on average ocean heat is transferred from ocean to atmosphere by conduction. The heated air is more buoyant than the air above it, so it convects the ocean heat upward into the atmosphere. If the ocean were colder than the atmosphere (which of course happens) the air in contact with the ocean cools, becoming denser and hence more stable, more stratified. As such the conduction process does a poor job of carrying the atmosphere heat into the cool ocean. This occurs over the subtropical upwelling regions of the ocean. The transfer of heat between ocean and atmosphere by conduction is more efficient when the ocean is warmer than the air it is in contact with. On global average the oceanic heat loss by conduction is only 24 watts per square meter.”
So the ocean is losing heat to the atmosphere by (among other means) conduction. The rate of heat transfer by conduction is proportionate to the temperature difference between the two bodies. Now let’s say that the lower atmosphere is not cooling into space as it normally would due to GHG effects. That would hold the atmospheric temperatures higher than previously. That would lower the rate at which the oceans can lose heat to the atmosphere by conduction, so they would accumulate more energy and warm up. What’s wrong with that?
I freely admit that I have not looked for a paper that asserts this, but it’s feasible, no?

Frederick Colbourne
January 5, 2018 at 8:21 AM

“So, unless you add or remove energy, if one warms the other must cool. But in reality, they both [atmosphere and ocean] warm…”

The key is the in the timing which depends on the masses involved and their specific heat. The specific heat of water is 4 times that of air. The ocean thermocline varies with latitude but is about 1000 meters deep. This top layer of the ocean warms and cools as it moves along in currents and oscillations over years and decades. The deeper layers of the ocean take several centuries to circumnavigate the globe gaining and losing energy in the process.

The global atmosphere turns over its energy in about one week.

Therein lies the difference.

The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation affects the climate of many regions in periodic fashion over periods as long as 60 years. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation does not behave in the same way but does affect the climate regimes of Asia-Pacific countries’. The graph shows 100 years of rainfall from 1901 onwards.

The heat capacity of the oceans is so great compared to the atmosphere that small variations in flux in and out of the oceans can have dramatic effects upon the atmosphere.

MichaelR
January 5, 2018 at 8:42 AM

I am not talking about ocean surface temperatures. I am talking about total heat content. In an El Niño you see the total ocean heat content drop as the global average atmospheric temperature rises.
Then the THC of the ocean increases again as the El Niño subsides.
It’s conservation of energy. It’s irrelevant where in the ocean the energy is. The THC does not care.
So it’s is not possible to make the claim that “perhaps some heat was injected [by the ocean] into the atmosphere that remained” as the THC ocean was NOT correspondingly lower after the El Niño. It was higher.

Your facts about the circulation of the ocean is all very interesting, and of course, water has a huge specific heat content compared to air, but now of that matters here.
It’s just about conservation of energy. Currents, regions etc are all irrelevant when you consider global average temperature and total heat content of the ocean.

David can’t put forward a hypothesis that “perhaps some heat was injected [by the ocean] into the atmosphere that remained” when the ocean heat content was not correspondingly lower to balance the increased energy in the atmosphere.

MichaelR
January 4, 2018 at 2:53 PM

David, this is very simple thing to understand. An El Niño cycle does indeed mean more warm water at the surface so the atmosphere gets warmer. But that heat has to come from somewhere. It’s simple conservation of energy. The El Niño mechanism just changes the rate of flow of heat from ocean to air and vice versa. So if there is no net energy added then the ocean must cool as the atmosphere warms. Otherwise, in a system of constant energy (which you assert by denying climate change) where is this extra energy in the atmosphere coming from to heat it?
You are specifically saying that in the 1998 El Niño the cycle did not “complete” ie some of the heat gained by the atmosphere from the El Niño did not return back to the ocean so there was a stable increase to the temperature in the atmosphere after the El Niño. So, in a constant energy system, that demands that the total heat content of the oceans was lower after this event than before it.
But the data shows the opposite. The THC of the oceans was higher very soon after the 1998 El Niño.
So warmer atmosphere AND warmer oceans. That means that the total energy of the system has increased. That means climate change.
And as for throwing out all ground based temperature records and the RSS data (which deniers used to love to wheel out until the group had to correct their mistakes), you are kidding me if you think that that is not cherry picking. But even if you do throw out all that data and rely on the solitary UAH6 dataset, your argument still fails a basic conservation of energy test.

(Reposted as disqus marked my comment as spam. I might be wrong, but I am not spamming!)

Frederick Colbourne
January 5, 2018 at 7:53 AM

“Otherwise, in a system of constant energy (which you assert by denying climate change) where is this extra energy in the atmosphere coming from to heat it?”

This assumes that the energy that enters the oceans does so from the atmosphere. The energy that enters the oceans is solar short wave energy. Extremely little short wave energy is emitted or reflected. That is why the oceans have an albedo of about 0.05.

And virtually no long wave energy is emitted below the thermal part of the spectrum, above about 12 microns. That is very near the peak wave length for Earth as a black body, about 15 microns.

True, the atmosphere does have an impact on energy contained by the ocean: depending on wind speed the atmosphere tends to cool the oceans.

MichaelR
January 5, 2018 at 8:07 AM

You are totally missing the point. David’s hypothesis is nothing to do with irradiance.

“Yes there is some warming [of the atmosphere] but it appears to be almost entirely coincident with the giant El Nino-La Nina cycle. The simplest explanation is that the second flat aperiodic period is warmer than the first because of the El Nino effect. Perhaps some heat was injected into the atmosphere that remained, thereby increasing the baseline for the next aperiodic oscillator.”

That hypothesis is falsified by the fact that the ocean is WARMER after this event. The total energy of the system (ocean plus atmosphere) after the 1998 El Nino is higher than before it. So warming has taken place.

You can put that down to higher irradiance if you like. I don’t care in this context. But the warming occurred. David’s hypothesis is wrong.

RealOldOne2
January 5, 2018 at 10:51 AM

“That hypothesis is falsified by the fact that the ocean is WARMER after this event.”
Totally false. The heat that is transferred out of the ocean into the atmosphere from an El Nino comes from the equatorial Pacific where the anomalously hot surface water exists, not the entire global ocean. So the fact that global OHC hasn’t decreased is irrelevant, because solar radiation can be increasing elsewhere. The data clearly shows that the equatorial Pacific does cool after an El Nino event.

Please spend some time studying before you comment on things that you obviously don’t understand.

Ned Christy
January 8, 2018 at 8:40 PM

WOW!!! You wrote, (The El Niño mechanism just changes the rate of flow of heat from ocean to air and vice versa”)..

El Nino are only two WORDS that are used when the Pacific Ocean waters warm in the tropic zone a few degrees F and that changes the ocean currents where the climate and weather alter a great deal along the coasts of North and South America…. When that happened the Spanish termed it an El Nino year.

El Nino is only words to explain a major change of weather due to warmer Pacific Ocean water in the Tropic zone.

MichaelR
January 9, 2018 at 2:11 AM

I am not that one making giant claims for how an El Niño can permanently transfer heat into the atmosphere. The author of this article is. This is David’s hypothesis

“The simplest explanation is that the second flat aperiodic period is warmer than the first because of the El Nino effect. Perhaps some heat was injected into the atmosphere that remained, thereby increasing the baseline for the next aperiodic oscillator.”

That means a net transfer of energy from the ocean to the atmosphere.

The measures of atmospheric and ocean total energy I am using are global, not regional.

If you follow David’s hypothesis, that the El Niño is the only thing going on, and that there is no overall warming, then how is it possible that the atmosphere (taken as a whole) warms AND the ocean (taken as a whole) warms over the period 1997-2000 (the “before” and “after” periods as far as David is concerned)?

RealOldOne2 says there is warming but it’s due to solar irradiance. I don’t buy that. But either way, David’s hypothesis does not fly.

Ned Christy
January 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM

You should have caught the error and not repeated it.

Ned Christy
January 9, 2018 at 3:49 AM

I tis very misleading to say (“El Nino is causing effect is causing anything).

El Nino are two WORDS used to describe what happens when the Pacific Ocean waters’ warm up a few degrees F near the equator.

What is causing problems is global warming which causes the Pacific Ocean waters’ to warm a few degrees F near the equator and the ocean currents alter and cause weather conditions to change around the globe. It is global warming, NOT El Nino.

Frederick Colbourne
January 5, 2018 at 7:44 AM

Yes, RSS uses SSTs to calibrate while UAH relies on onboard calibration and is thus an entirely independent dataset.

BigWaveDave
January 8, 2018 at 3:01 AM

The only thing you make clear is that you are too committed to the dogma, and too stupid to examine the evidence.

Li D
January 8, 2018 at 4:08 AM

Yeah yeah. What deniers laughingly call evidence is just stuff that falls out of their arse. Every single bit of it is just crap.
If you mob was in court with this shite, the beak would ream yas so bloody hard.
Its astonishing adults carry on with this infantile game.

BigWaveDave
January 8, 2018 at 6:37 AM

You don’t even have a plausible theory of how your stupid belief could possibly be true.

Robert
January 8, 2018 at 4:44 PM

“Its almost Pythonesqe absurdity.”
Only because DW wasn’t trying for comedic effect and doesn’t realize how depraved promulgating a pd for denialist position is

Li D
January 3, 2018 at 7:33 AM

“The simplest explanation is that the second flat aperiodic period is warmer than the first because of the El Nino effect. Perhaps some heat was injected into the atmosphere that remained, thereby increasing the baseline for the next aperiodic oscillator.”
Yes indeedy. The simplest explaination is a compounding perpetual motion device that just began a couple decades ago for the first time in the universes history where energy just magically appears.

David Wojick
January 3, 2018 at 11:31 AM

Given that the giant El Nino caused a lot of heat to suddenly appear in the atmosphere, as measure by the temperature spike, there is no reason why it should all suddenly go away. But if this somehow equals perpetual motion to you, then let’s hear how?

Li D
January 3, 2018 at 2:04 PM

Soooo your idea is air temps went up a little bit cuz of transfer from the ocean. Resulting obviously in the ocean coolng , ( since extra energy in excess to norm is not being added to the system cuz global warming dosnt exist ) thus shrinking in volume and SLR to reverse. This is confirmed by observations is it? The sea is falling as the air temps rise.

Do you not get it? The entire system is gaining energy. And short of being a friggen perpetual motion machine, there is a reason for this. A reason NOT explained by saying ‘ ohhh heat moves around a bit within the system ‘.

kuhnkat
January 3, 2018 at 3:50 PM

Not exactly. The oceans could have been gaining energy which was released during the El Nino. The overall system total energy would not need to change.

Another area still not studied, partially due to the difficulty, is the amount of geo energy moving from the earth into the ocean bottoms through underwater vents and volcanoes. We know there are tens of thousands of underwater colcanoes and innumerable vets. As geologic activity is not constant the flux of this heat is also probably driving the erratic El Nino/La Nina cycles.

“9 Jul 07 – Researchers have counted 201,055 underwater cones, 10 times more than have been found before, and estimate that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 meters over the sea bed.
“The distribution of underwater volcanoes tells us something about what is happening in the centre of the Earth,” says John Hillier of the University of Cambridge in the UK. That is because they give information about the flows of hot rock in the mantle beneath.

Since the late 1960s, research vessels have been criss-crossing the oceans using sonar instruments to measure the depth of the ocean floor. They have generated 40 million kilometres of linear profiles showing the topography of the ocean bed between 60E° North –– the latitude of southern Alaska –– and 60E° South –– corresponding to the tip of Patagonia.

But until now, no one had been able to sift through them all. So, Hillier and a colleague designed a computer programme that was able to analyse the huge amount of data and identify volcano-like shapes in the sonar lines.

Hillier then extrapolated the data to estimate how many volcanoes exist beyond the areas the research vessels sounded out.

Li D
January 4, 2018 at 6:30 AM

Dont bother with the underwater volcano crap. Its bullplop.
Theres good reasons why its bullplop and im sure you could find those reasons.
And heres the thing. Even if there was a very recent massive surge in volcano activity, with accurate data from clear observations, that in no way invalidates any AGW science. Any alternative idea must firstly stand very robustly on its own two feet AND concurrently overturn the AGW physics and broader consilience.
Methinks thats a big ask for some paranoid conspiracist loons in yankland .

“The overall system total energy would not need to change.”
And so a heating atmosphere results in a lower sea level due to thermal contraction, in this wierd arse closed system idea.
Maybe you should put the closed system idea to deniers who say its the * drumroll * sun! Its gotta be the sun. Or seeing you a jonova fan, the fabulous force x postulated by her partner.
Id quite enjoy reading a 4 way broo haha between volcano loons, sun loons ( now theres a mixed terminology! ) and force x loons with closed system folk sniping from the sidelines.
Its actually quite odd one never sees deniers argue their pathetic cases against each other. Absolute claptrap goes without critique.
Why is that deniers? You see some rubbish at odds with your own pet Galilaen fantasy, but yous never ever speak up about it.

kuhnkat
January 4, 2018 at 6:57 PM

Thanks for you post. When you actually have data to support your spiel, instead of ad hom and verbiage,please post it.

Frederick Colbourne
January 5, 2018 at 7:41 AM

This fellow is spot on. Geothermal heat emissions occur near the margins of tectonic plates, known to be small in area compared to the areas of the plates themselves.

Lots of borehole data confirm his claims.

kuhnkat
January 5, 2018 at 10:11 AM

Except you haven’t presented any links to data and the links I posted show volcanism is widespread.

Sad.

Frederick Colbourne
January 7, 2018 at 12:25 AM

Reference included in reply to another comment.

kuhnkat
January 5, 2018 at 10:17 AM

For instance, there are no tectonic plate edges in the western Antarctica, yet, recent surveys found 90 volcanoes beneath the ice.

See link above.

Frederick Colbourne
January 7, 2018 at 12:18 AM

Possibly you are thinking about the lack of subduction zones. Within the Antarctic Plate itself is the West Antarctic Rift System. The existence of this system indicates spreading similar to the rift system in East Africa and its relation to the East African Superswell. (Reference below.)

The Antarctic Plate is very large in comparison with the West Antarctic Rift System. All plates worldwide are much greater in area than their active volcanic zones. The same is true of both convergent and divergent plates, rift zones within plates, and mantle hotspots.

To make a theory of “Plutonic climatology” work, you would have to show that the extent of active vulcanism is much greater than what is currently known. In my opinion, the theory is not promising, but I follow the arguments as new facts are discovered.

A reference you might find interesting:
Fitzgerald Paul, Tectonics and landscape evolution of the Antarctic plate since the breakup of Gondwana, with an emphasis on the West Antarctic Rift System and the Transantarctic Mountains in Antarctica at the close of a millennium. Royal Society of New Zealand Bulletin 35: 2002

Frederick Colbourne
January 7, 2018 at 12:19 AM

I regret that you thought my comment was ad hominem, something I did not intend.

BigWaveDave
January 8, 2018 at 3:20 AM

If there is actual AGW physics, why has no one been able to state a theory of how measurable AGW from CO2 could be possible?

Li D
January 8, 2018 at 3:36 AM

Lol!
Its all written up. Even for children.
See your friendly librarian.

BigWaveDave
January 8, 2018 at 6:36 AM

So what you are saying is you are unable to state or quote any theory that explains how measurable warming of Earth’s surface could possibly result from changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Ned Christy
January 8, 2018 at 8:32 PM

Ha ha haa.. You believe an El Nino releases hear.

Please do explain how that is possible….. I am quite certain you don’t have a clue of what El Nino means… If you did you never would have said what you said.

RealOldOne2
January 8, 2018 at 11:13 PM

“Ha ha haa. You believe an El Nino releases hear[t]. Please explain how that is possible.”

“El Nino and Global Warming – What’s the Connection … Although El Nino’s strongest impacts are found around the equatorial Pacific, they can affect weather around the world by influencing high and low pressure systems, winds and precipitation. And as the warmer ocean waters release excess energy (heat) into the atmosphere, global temperatures rise.” – Columbia Univ. Earth Institute, http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2016/02/02/el-nino-and-global-warming-whats-the-connection/

You are revealing your ignorance of the climate system.

Ned Christy
January 9, 2018 at 3:02 AM

Once again Old One… El Nino is just two words and have no power to do anything… Using the excuse a El Nino is a problem ignores the problem is global warming.

The heat capacity of the atmosphere is negligible, roughly equivalent to the heat capacity of the upper 10 meters of the world ocean. The lagged effect of the El Nino arises because the ocean surface waters retain the heat.

kuhnkat
January 3, 2018 at 4:49 PM

“For example, the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment led to the revolutionary special theory of relativity.”

Actually, and it is an important difference, the Michelson-Morley experiments had a NULL result. That is, they didn’t find what they were looking for. It did not have NEGATIVE results which would have tended to disprove the idea of aether.

A case can be made from empirical data that anthropogenic CO2 is an insignificant factor n causing climate warming over the last 140 years.

The 1975 NAS ‘Understanding Climatic Change’ shows that temperature increase by ~0.7C from 1880-1940. Humans added ~150 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere during that period.
From 1940-1970 humans added ~250 billions of CO2 to the atmosphere, which was ~2/3rds of all the human CO2 produced up to that point, and temperature decreased by about as much as it had increased in the previous 60 years, bringing temperature right back to where it was in 1880. Here’s the graph from the report which shows this: https://climatism.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/nas.jpg?w=590&h=402
Clear empirical evidence that CO2 is an insignificant cause of climate warming.

During the last two decades of the 20th century humans added ~460 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere and temperature increased by ~0.3C, https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4e8cf76fe6a25f4828eb80126155ee411ecc1e78d33fac9e1e1e969ad37120e0.png . You can see that the increase over that period was in large part due to the large natural warming of the 1998 El Nino. And peer reviewed science shows that during those decades natural climate forcing (more solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface) increased by ~10 times more than CO2 forcing increased.
So again the data doesn’t support that CO2 was the primary cause of that warming either.

And the warming since then is due to the natural warming of the 2015-2016 El Nino which was a release of stored solar energy from the ocean to the atmosphere.

So the empirical evidence does not support the contention that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of climate warming as the climate alarmists claim. Natural climate variability can explain it.

Robert
January 6, 2018 at 8:59 AM

“A case can be made from empirical ….” says an anonymous Internet commentor posting original analysis on a climate science denialist blog post claiming, w original analysis, that there has been no warming for 40 years…..

“The Earth’s climate is changing. Temperatures are rising, snow and rainfall patterns are shifting, and more extreme climate events – like heavy rainstorms and record high temperatures – are already happening. Many of these observed changes are linked to the rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, caused by human activities. ”https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators

“The likely range of the human contribution to the global mean temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1° to 1.4°F (0.6° to 0.8°C), and the central estimate of the observed warming of 1.2°F (0.65°C) lies within this range (high confidence). This translates to a likely human contribution of 92%–123% of the observed 1951–2010 change. The likely contributions of natural forcing and internal variability to global temperature change over that period are minor (high confidence). (Ch. 3; Fig. ES.2)”
USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp., doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6

WHAT WE KNOW
THE REALITY, RISKS, AND RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}

• It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}

• Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}

• Over every continental region except Antarctica, anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century (see Figure SPM.6). For Antarctica, large observational uncertainties result in low confidence that anthropogenic forcings have contributed to the observed warming averaged over available stations. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic contribution to the very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century. {2.4, 10.3}

• It is very likely that anthropogenic influence, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion, has led to a detectable observed pattern of tropospheric warming and a corresponding cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1961. {2.4, 9.4, 10.3}

• It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) observed since the 1970s (see Figure SPM.6). There is evidence for human influence in some individual ocean basins. {3.2, 10.4}

• It is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence), to global scale changes in precipitation patterns over land (medium confidence), to intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions where data are sufficient (medium confidence), and to changes in surface and sub-surface ocean salinity (very likely). {2.5, 2.6, 3.3, 7.6, 10.3, 10.4}
SPM WG1 AR5

RealOldOne2
January 6, 2018 at 9:26 AM

All those reports of how beautiful the emperor’s clothes are don’t change the fact that the temperature and CO2 data I provided show that the emperor has no clothes. You are just handwaving.

Robert
January 6, 2018 at 9:36 AM

Then, as you’ve been asked for repeatedly, you should be able to show reams of papers , journal published, peer reviewed journal published papers that show the same results as your Internet comment original analysis.

You know, like how repeated papers show similar results on level of consensus, even when datasets and methodology is different.

Or like how the IPCC reports show that hundreds of papers coalesced around a central figure for temp, sensitivity, ice melt, glacier retreat, species and disease migration.

RealOldOne2
January 6, 2018 at 9:47 AM

The data speaks for itself. You continue to avoid discussing the data. This has been your MO for the years that I have interacted with you.

Robert
January 6, 2018 at 10:23 AM

Yes, it does.

And in the years, we’ve seen multiple major reports written by real scientists showing exact to opposite of what you purport.

ln the years, the consensus has risen to the high 90s.

The Paris Accord

And the One Planet Summit

And every state has updated energy policies.

Renewable energy has become part of utility corp portfolios

And just about everyone has realized that there is no debate among real scientists.

RealOldOne2
January 6, 2018 at 10:33 AM

Consensus of opinions proves nothing in science. Empirical data does.
I’m sure you would have been a staunch defender of flat earth, of Piltdown Man, of Eugenics, of bleeding to cure disease too.

I’m still waiting for you to refute the empirical data that I presented. Repeating propaganda talking points of your climate alarmist religion proves nothing except that you are a true believer.

Robert
January 6, 2018 at 10:49 AM

I don’t bother with arguing about some crank science analysis that doesn’t fit to the observations. Crank science that is only found on blogs. Crank science from anonymouse internet commentors. Crank science that sets out to disprove nearly 200 years of global research. Crank science that uses 3 woods for trees graphs in an effort to argue the entire field of science is wrong. Crank science that equivalent phrases Google source only to climate science denialism blogs and comment threads. Crank science that doesn’t follow the most basic, most well established fundementals of physics and chemistry.

“…data I presented which shows that anthropogenic CO2 has not caused any significant climate warming over the past 140 years.”

Immortal600
January 6, 2018 at 5:34 PM

Don’t waste your time with Robert. He’s another idiot who thinks the science was settled 120 years ago. LOL

RealOldOne2
January 7, 2018 at 2:51 PM

But it’s so much fun exposing the scientific illiteracy of the crank trolls and watching them thrash and flail as they obfuscate with nonsensical logically fallacious arguments.

BigWaveDave
January 8, 2018 at 3:27 AM

Why is there no theory that explains how it could be physically possible for such stupid conclusions to be correct?

Robert
January 8, 2018 at 1:28 PM

I read that over a bunch o’times… I tried, I really tried.
Do you mean science or ?

Real”s conclusion isn’t based on science analysis, but on misinterpreting , partly by cherrypicking, what the science says so it incorrectly fits to a conclusion Real liked. That’s a basic technique followed by blogs focused on disseminating climate science denialism talking points.

BigWaveDave
January 8, 2018 at 2:57 PM

No, I mean there is no theory that explains how it is possible for CO2 in the atmosphere to be causing any noticeable temperature change.

Robert
January 8, 2018 at 3:31 PM

I’m sorry, but the time spent explaining yet again that there is no science supporting your asinine claim is more environmentally productive picking up poo because of irresponsible dog owners.

Not to mention the rest of the world is working on solutions, while you’re reciting from the religious texts of the pd for denialist blogs.

The 12 #OnePlanet commitments
“12 commitments made, 12 commitments to be kept. Emmanuel Macron warned the One Planet Summit participants: “Think long and hard, if you make a commitment, we will hold you to it.” They thought long and hard… and decided to commit. These are more than commitments, they are actions. Here they are. Stepping up finance for adaptation and resilience to climate change” https://www.oneplanetsummit.fr/en/https://www.oneplanetsummit.fr/en/the-12-oneplanet-commitments/

BigWaveDave
January 9, 2018 at 4:34 AM

I’m sorry, but the time spent explaining yet again that there is no science supporting your asinine claim is more environmentally productive picking up poo because of irresponsible dog owners.

Spreading poo seems to be your only skill. Citing the commitments of others who are equally stupid doesn’t provide scientific support for the stupid idea that curtailing the production of CO2 is somehow useful.

You certainly have not offered anything that explains how CO2 in the atmosphere could possibly be noticeably affecting temperature or climate.

Admit it. You can not state or quote any way that atmospheric CO2 could ever possibly affect the temperatures of Earth’s troposphere or surface, can you?

Robert
January 9, 2018 at 4:59 AM

Missing the point being made.
Thanks.

Li D
January 9, 2018 at 7:20 AM

“… poo because of irresponsible dog owners.”
May i quicky say that people in wheelchairs are particularly affected by such dog owners and appreciate clean footpaths.

Robert
January 6, 2018 at 9:00 AM

“A case can be made from empirical ….” says an anonymous Internet commentor posting original analysis on a climate science denialist blog post claiming, w original analysis, that there has been no warming for 40 years…..

C.R.A.A.P. TEST

Currency: the timeliness of the information
When was the information published or posted?
Has the information been revised or updated?
Is the information current or out-of date for your topic?
Are the links functional?Relevance: the importance of the information for your needs
Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
Who is the intended audience?
Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs)?
Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?
Would you be comfortable using this source for a research paper?Authority: the source of the information
Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
Are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
What are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
What are the author’s qualifications to write on the topic?
Is there contact information, such as a publisher or e-mail address?
Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source?

examples: .com (commercial), .edu (educational), .gov (U.S. government),
.org (nonprofit organization), or .net (network)Accuracy: the reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content, and
Where does the information come from?
Is the information supported by evidence?
Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge?
Does the language or tone seem biased and free of emotion?
Are there spelling, grammar, or other typographical errors?Purpose: the reason the information exists
What is the purpose of the information? to inform? teach? sell? entertain? persuade?
Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
Is the information fact? opinion? propaganda?
Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases?

It is noted that you have provided no empirical evidence to refute the empirical temperature and CO2 data I presented which shows that anthropogenic CO2 has not caused any significant climate warming over the past 140 years.

Robert
January 6, 2018 at 9:54 AM

Yes. You are correct.
I don’t bother with arguing about some crank science analysis that doesn’t fit to the observations. Crank science that is only found on blogs. Crank science from anonymouse internet commentors. Crank science that sets out to disprove nearly 200 years of global research. Crank science that uses 3 woods for trees graphs in an effort to argue the entire field of science is wrong. Crank science that equivalent phrases Google source only to climate science denialism blogs and comment threads. Crank science that doesn’t follow the most basic, most well established fundementals of physics and chemistry.

“…data I presented which shows that anthropogenic CO2 has not caused any significant climate warming over the past 140 years.”

RealOldOne2
January 6, 2018 at 10:26 AM

True to your MO, you avoid discussing science (empirical data) because it shows you are wrong and you can’t refute it, so you handwave with derogatory and false “crank” & “denialism” name calling. Sad. But the jihadist zeal in which you attempt to defend your climate religion proves Dr. Lindzen correct:

“Global warming differs from the preceding two affairs [Eugenics & Lysenkoism]: Global warming has become a religion. … people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal.” – Dr. Richard Lindzen, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT Source: http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf

There is nothing “crank” about posting a temperature graph from a NAS report, and plots of CO2 levels from Mauna Load datasets, and plots of satellite temperatures from the UAH dataset, and amounts of CO2 emissions from the Oak Ridge National Labs dataset.

The very data that I posted is what will cause people in the future to shake their heads in disbelief as they ponder how people could be be fooled into believing the histrionics and warnings of climate catastrophe and coming climate doom from climate alarmists like you:

“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.” – Dr. Richard Lindzen – Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor of Atmospheric Science.

Robert
January 6, 2018 at 10:57 AM

Svante had a 120 years less data and only a pencil and his work has stood to the test of time. With thousands of papers providing more detail, verifying, repeating the results.

“..people in the future to shake their heads in disbelief…”
And your endless repetition on comment threads hasn’t been replicated, verified, ….

“Source: http://www.jpands…”
Let the world know which climate related journal published that

“”The evidence speaks for itself.”
Yes it does, and shows that once again you avoid discussing the science that I presented, and you just repeat your false climate talking points and evidence-free claims.

You are just denying science, denying reality and doing as Lindzen said, making a failed attempt to defend your climate alarmism religion with jihadist zeal. Sad.

Robert
January 7, 2018 at 11:15 AM

I’m sure you are frustrated that I won’t respond to your beck and call. There is no need to.
I’ve pointed out why I am choosing not to enter a discussion on your terms. Try posting your claptrap at a science forum, or ask a local hs science instructor to read and respond to it. I think a reading of your science there wil result in a similar response.

You refusal is your admission that you can’t refute any of the science that I have posted which shows that anthropogenic CO2 is an insignificant factor in causing climate warming.
Thanks.

Robert
January 7, 2018 at 11:43 AM

And that is the perfect example of what I just, literally less than 3 minutes ago, told you.

At this point I’m wondering if you’re just pavlovly hitting respond.

RealOldOne2
January 7, 2018 at 2:36 PM

Your admission that you have no intention of discussing science means all your comments have just been trolling.
Got it.

Robert
January 7, 2018 at 2:44 PM

And, again…that is the perfect example of what I told you. Only this time it took you 3 hrs….

My history is open. Everyone is free to compare our comments and come to their own conclusion.

Peter Olins
January 7, 2018 at 12:03 PM

I’m no expert here, but it’s my understanding that measurements of the downward radiation at the surface of the earth have increased substantially at the same wavelengths as the absorption maxima of CO2 and methane. Doesn’t this support the idea that the warming effects of these GHGs have not maxed out, contrary to your claim?

“that the warming effects of these GHGs have not maxed out, contrary to your claim?”

My claim is that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of climate warming. CO2 is a trace ghg, only 0.04% of the atmosphere. Water vapor is the strongest ghg, ~1% of the atmosphere. All other things being equal, more CO2 in the atmosphere should increase DWIR, but the above data shows, the increase in atmospheric CO2 from ~370ppm to ~400ppm hasn’t caused DWIR to increase, which means, not surprisingly, that all other things have not remained equal.

The climate system is hugely complex, and it’s simplistic to believe that CO2 is the “thermostat” that controls global temperature as climate alarmists claim.

I agree with Prof. Stott who says:

“As I have said over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by managing at the margins one politically-selected factor, CO2, is as misguided as it gets.” – Prof. Philip Stott

Peter Olins
January 7, 2018 at 5:08 PM

I read that, over time, the spectra corresponding to CO2 and CH4 for outgoing radiation and reflected radiation have decreased and increased, respectively. Doesn’t this support the idea that these gases are increasing in their effect on the surface, in step with their rising concentrations?

(NB I’m a relatively naive follower of this field, so I’m just asking a question, rather than claiming I have the answer.)

RealOldOne2
January 7, 2018 at 7:58 PM

“increasing their effect on the surface”
It has very little effect on the surface for a couple reasons:
1) The only source of thermal energy transferred to the surface is from solar radiation, as shown by this earth energy budget diagram from peer reviewed science: https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg
2) That diagram shows that ~70% of the energy transferred away from the surface is via latent and sensible convective heat transfer.
3) The ~30% that is transferred away from the surface via radiation is absorbed by ghgs in the lower atmosphere and the energy is transferred to the surrounding N₂ & O₂ molecules before the ghg molecule can emit a photon, as discussed here: http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html
4) Once the energy is transferred to ghgs in the upper atmosphere where there are few surrounding N₂ & O₂ molecules to collide with, the energy is radiated out to colder outer space.

Since you’re a NB, you might not be aware that SkS is not a trustworthy website. It is a climate alarmism site which posts disinformation, such as the article you linked to.

It claims: “climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution”. That is false, because there are no peer reviewed papers which empirically quantify anthropogenic vs. natural warming.

It claims: “The increase in downward infrared radiation has been observed through spectroscopy” The CERES graph that I posted in my previous comment shows that DWLWIR has decreased, not increased.

It makes the fundamental flaw of arguing based on the wrong view that energy transfer is just a radiative problem.

It makes the fundamental flaw of attempting to show anthropogenic vs. natural apportionment by using climate models. Climate models can’t accurately model natural climate change, so they are totally incapable of determining anthropogenic vs. natural warming.

That’s just a few of the errors in just the page you linked to.

I guess that’s the kind of shoddy science that you’d expect from a site run by a cartoonist:

The data from NOAA, NASA, UK Hadley, and others show a fairly steady uptrend in temperatures since the 1970s. The available data for 2017 show it will be just above or just below 2015.
Yes, individual big El Nino’s (say 1998 and 2016) can boost and La Nina’s (say 2000 and 2011) can reduce in a given year – also volcanic eruptions like El Chichon and Pinatubo can temporarily reduce.
But the long-term trend is up and continues.
So the answer to the question: yes, there’s a steady long-term warming from human CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions in the last 40 years https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/35b0f0c477e51cbf1c65a7ccdc767ac16afcadf3129ebab0a9b947d313b4c3f9.png

RealOldOne2
January 6, 2018 at 11:53 AM

“So the answer to the answer to the question: yes, there’s been steady warming from human CO2 and other greenhouse gas emission in the last 40 years”
Setting aside the fact that your graph is not representative of a true global temperature because it is not the satellite record, and the fact that it is not even measured temperatures, it’s adjusted numbers), the fatal flaw in what you posted is that you gave zero empirical evidence that any warming is caused by human CO2.

The empirical evidence shows that it is caused by natural forcing, a predominance of El Ninos and more solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface. Peer reviewed science has shown that during the late 20th century warming, the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface has increased by 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m² which is ~10 times greater than than the increase in CO2 forcing.

“The decrease in the Earth’s reflectance from 1984 to 2000 suggested by Fig. 4, translates into a Bond albedo decrease of 0.02 (out of a nominal value of about 0.30) or an additional global shortwave forcing of 6.8W/m².”
Title: ‘Shortwave forcing of the Earth’s climate: Modern and historical variations in the Sun’s irradiance and Earth’s reflectance’
Author, P.R. Goode, E. Pallé
Journal: Journal of ATMOSPHERIC and SOLAR-TERRESTRIAL PHYSICS
DoP: Sept 2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2007.06.011

“Long term variations in solar radiation at the Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate … We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 W per square meter (0.10%) per year … the observed changes in radiation budget are caused by changes in mean tropical cloudiness, which is detected in the satellite observations but fails to be predicted by several current climate models.” –
Title: ‘Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation?’
Author: R.T. Pinker, et al.
Journal: Science
DoP: 6 May 2005
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103159
(0.16W/m²/yr x 18 years=2.88W/m² for 1983-2001)

“The temperature pattern for the period 1988-1997 appears to be generally consistent with the 7% reduction in total cloud cover that occurred across the period 1987-1999. Applying that reduction to the influence of clouds in the energy budget described by Trenberth et al. [34] results in an increased average solar forcing at the Earth’s surface of about 5 Wm⁻². This increase is more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing from all anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. … Conclusions Since 1950, global average temperature anomalies have been driven firstly, from 1950 to 1987, by a sustained shift in ENSO conditions, by reductions in total cloud cover (1987 to late 1990s) and then a shift from low cloud to mid and high-level cloud, with both changes in cloud cover being very widespread. According to the energy balance described by Trenberth et al. (2009) [34], the reduction in total cloud cover accounts for the increase in temperature since 1987, leaving little, if any, of the temperature change to be attributed to other forcings.” –
Title: ‘Late Twentieth-Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover’
Author: John McLean
Journal: Atmospheric and Climate Sciences
DoP: October 24, 2014
DOI: 10.4236/acs.2014.44066

James Owens
January 6, 2018 at 12:46 PM

As I noted, there are several ways that track the warming of the earth’s climate – and the surface temperature I provided is the one most used.
Since almost 93% of the added heat from AGW ends up in the oceans – the “700 pound gorilla” is that ocean heat content.
So recent data – Figure 6 from Cheng et al Improved estimates of ocean heat content from 1960 to 2015 Science Advances vol3 e1601545 2017 which is open source. Note it has the amount of the heat increase at various depths and the yellow-gold line is the 93% of the calculated heat from added human greenhouse gases. So excellent match. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/419613f9cc7a6694fb2436b51bec74cd66abb99505a9195c7cbc1d1a7ed9d148.png

RealOldOne2
January 6, 2018 at 6:28 PM

“Since almost 93% of the added heat from AGW ends up in the oceans -“
Wrong. That 93% is natural, not from AGW, because the only physical ocean-atmosphere heat exchange process that adds heat to the oceans is solar radiation. All other processes remove heat from the ocean. http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html

You have just conceded that 90+% of the global warming since 1955 has been natural, not anthropogenic.

James Owens
January 6, 2018 at 9:41 PM

RealOldRavingLunatic – The oceans are part of the earth’s climate system and when there’s an imbalance like that caused by AGW, heat distributes throughout the climate system. The oceans are the heat sink – their mass is almost 1000 times greater than the atmosphere. The heat capacity of water is about 4 times that of air.To try and summarize, rising greenhouse gas concentrations prevent some of the heat radiated from Earth’s surface from escaping into space. Over 90% of this excess heat ends up stored in the oceans.
It’s an enormous amount of heat that the oceans have taken up due to AGW – over 20 x 10^22 joules.
For references on the oceans taking up >90% of the AGW heat and thus raising their heat content, please see some of the following:
Abraham et al A Review of Ocean Global Temperature Observations Implications for Ocean Heat Content Estimates and Climate Change Rev Geophys 51:450–483 2013
Cheng et al Improved estimates of ocean heat content from 1960 to 2015 Science Adv vol3 e1601545 2017
Church et al Revisiting earths sea-level and energy budgets from 1961 to 2008 Geophys Res Let vol38 L18601 2011
IPCC AR4 Chapter 5 section 5.2.2 Ocean Heat Content
IPCC AR5 Chapter 3 section 3.2 Changes in Ocean Temperature and Heat Content
Levitus et al World ocean heat content and thermosteric level change 0-2000 m 1955-2010 Geophys Res Let vol39 L10603 2012
Levitus et al Warming of the world ocean 1955-2003 Geophys Res Let vol32 L02604 2005
Lyman & Johnson Estimating Global Ocean Heat Content Changes in the Upper 1800 m since 1950 and the Influence of Climatology Choice J Climate 27:1945-1957 2014
Trenberth et al Earth’s Energy Imbalance J Climate 27:3129-3144 2014
von Schuckmann et al An imperative to monitor earth’s energy imbalance Nature Climate Change 6:138–144 2016
So there is a natural heat exchange not only from the planet to space, but within the parts of the earth’s climate system such as the atmosphere, oceans, land, and ice. When AGW warms the climate system – yes, 90% of the heat ends up in the oceans. The increased heat observed is due to the increased greenhouse effect from human emissions.

RealOldOne2
January 7, 2018 at 1:33 AM

“RealOldRavingLunatic”
No, I’m just calmly presenting science and empirical data.
It appears that once again you are getting very angry that I post science that you can’t refute. Your name calling doesn’t change the scientific fact that solar radiation is the only ocean-atmosphere heat exchange process that adds heat to the ocean. I gave you the Columbia Univ. reference which backs up what I posted. You ignored it.
And I would add that none of your references provide any science to refute this scientific fact. None of them provide any physical mechanism for ghgs in the atmosphere to transfer any significant amount of heat into the oceans. Only natural solar radiation does that.

“When AGW warms the climate system – yes, 90% of the heat ends up in the ocean.”
There is no empirical science showing anthropogenic causation of any significant warming of the climate system. There are claims of that, but no empirical evidence showing that those claims are in fact true.
And since you agree that 93% of the warming observed in the climate system is the increase in OHC, and the only physical mechanism that causes that is natural, solar radiation, that means that 90+% of the warming is natural.
None of your references refute that with any empirical science.

“when there’s an imbalance like that”
The uncertainties are so large that we really don’t know how large the imbalance is. Here is the supporting evidence of that:
• “We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!” – Kevin Trenberth, climategate mail#1255530325

“For the decade considered, the average imbalance is 0.6 = 340.2 – 239.7 – 99.9 Wm⁻² when these TOA fluxes are constrained to the best estimate ocean heat content (OHC) observations since 2005 (refs 13,14). This small imbalance is over two orders of magnitude smaller than the individual components that define it and smaller than the error of each individual flux. The combined uncertainty on the net TOA flux determined from CERES is ±4 Wm⁻² (95% confidence) due largely to instrument calibration errors.¹² ¹⁵ Thus the sum of current satellite-derived fluxes cannot determine the net TOA radiation imbalance with the accuracy needed to track such small imbalances associated with forced climate change.¹¹ ” – Stephens(2012) ‘An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations’

The IPCC AR4 reference you cite does discuss OHC in section 5.2.2.1, but doesn’t discuss the air-sea fluxes that caused the increase in OHC. That is discussed in Section 5.2.4, where it says: “The global average changes in global ocean heat content discussed above are driven by changes in the air-sea net energy flux (see Section 5.2.2.1). At regional scales few estimates of heat flux changes have been possible. … At the global scale, the accuracy of the flux observations is insufficient to permit a direct assessment of the changes in heat flux. Air-sea heat fluxes are discussed in Section 3.5.6.”
In Section 3.5.6 is says: “Significant uncertainties remain in global fields of the net heat exchange, stemming from problems in obtaining accurate estimates of the heat flux components. … Recent evaluations of heat flux estimates from reanalysis and in situ observations indicate some improvements but there are still global biases of several tens of watts per square metre”

In your AR5 reference, Sections 3.2.3 & 3.2.4 quantify OHC, but do not discuss causation. Section 3.4 ‘Changes in Ocean Surface Fluxes’ draws the same conclusion that AR4 did: “Air-sea fluxes also influence temperature and humidity in the atmosphere and, therefore, the hydrological cycle and atmospheric circulation. AR4 concluded that, at the global scale, the accuracy of the observations is insufficient to permit a direct assessment of the changes in heat flux (AR4 Section 5.2.4). As described in Section 3.4.2, although substantial progress has been made since AR4, that conclusion still holds for this assessment.”

The shortwave flux is solar radiation and confirms what I have said and the Columbia Univ. lecture says that solar radiation is the only physical mechanism that adds heat to the ocean. The longwave net flux removes heat from the ocean.

The fact remains that the only ocean-atmosphere heat exchange process that adds heat to the ocean is solar radiation, which is natural, not anthropogenic.

Recent studies show the world’s ocean is heating up as it absorbs most of the extra heat being added to the climate system from the build-up of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. In fact, more than 90 percent of Earth’s warming during the past 50 years has gone into the ocean. Warming has been observed even in the bottom-most reaches of the ocean, but most of the heat is accumulating in the ocean’s near-surface layers.

“The science is refuting you, RealOldRavingLunatic”
No, the science is refuting you and your fellow climate alarmists James. Nothing in that NOAA webpage provides any empirical evidence that humans or CO2 in the atmosphere has caused the “93.4%” of heat that has been stored in the ocean. Neither that webpage nor anyone else has offered any physical mechanism that shows how human emitted ghgs can transfer heat from the atmosphere into the oceans. As I’ve shown and as you have not been able to refute, the only physical mechanism that can do that is solar radiation, and that is natural.

James Owens
January 7, 2018 at 8:48 AM

Your choice, RealOldRavingLunatic – science says
1. there are heat flows in the earth’s climate system and that the primary reservoir for the heat is the oceans (remember, in the last deglaciation leading to the Holocene, as the world warmed, the oceans warmed)
2. there’s currently an energy imbalance due. Heat in the earth’s climate system is rising due to human greenhouse gas emissions. So again, the earth is warming and the oceans are warming as the major heat sink (yes, more solar heat is being retained in the earth’s climate system – the solar origin of the energy is natural, but the added retention of some of that energy is man-made)

RealOldOne2
January 7, 2018 at 11:40 AM

“there’s currently an energy imbalance due to rising human greenhouse emissions”
There is no empirical science that shows that any energy imbalance (if any) is caused by human ghg emissions. Science and the empirical data shows that it is due to solar radiation transferring more heat into the oceans, as you admit.

“yes, more solar heat is being retained in the earth’s climate system – origin is natural, but the added retention is man-made”
I’m glad you finally admit that the Sun is the cause of the additional energy in the oceans.
But there is no evidence that shows the retention is man-made. That’s just another of your evidence-free claims.
In fact the empirical evidence shows that downward longwave flux from the atmosphere (which is allegedly “trapping” more heat” is decreasing, not increasing as your climate alarmist religion says it should. Here’s the data: https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/lw-ned.png

That shows that ghgs have not provided any more resistance to heat leaving the earth’s surface.
And the empirical evidence supports that in fact. The energy leaving the surface has increased, not decreased as your climate alarmism religion says it should. Here’s the data: https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/lw-opp.png

So once again, real science, empirical data, shows that you and your climate alarmist religion are making false claims.

The reality is that the Sun is still the primary driver of the climate system, and the climate system is just responding naturally to the changes in solar radiation.

James Owens
January 7, 2018 at 1:57 PM

The sun originates the energy, RealOldRavingLunatic, but the cause of the increase in the ocean heat content, as well as the increased surface temps and glacial ice melt, is the increase in the greenhouse effect trapping (retaining) more heat energy on earth. It’s called AGW.
And the Baseline Surface Radiation Network shows that the downwelling longwave IR from the greenhouse effect is indeed gradually increasing as CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels rise.
And the overall balance at the top of the atmosphere should be TSI (solar incoming) – RSW (total reflected albedo) – OLR (outgoing emitted longwave IR).
Suggest you may want to consult several papers:
1. Loeb et al Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty Nature Geoscience 5:110-113 2012. Basically , the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect and the rising heat content of the oceans match relatively well.
2. Loeb et al CERES top-of-atmosphere Earth radiation budget climate data record – accounting for in-orbit changes in instrument calibration Remote Sensing vol8 182 2016. They have moved on to Edition 4 to address a number of issues such as instrument drift. In Figure 7, they have the downwelling IR from 3 satellite systems – but the slope is downward. In this specific case, they are addressing issues with a slight daylight overlap in the shortwave and longwave spectra. So the top panel is daylight – and bottom panel daylight minus nighttime. So you need to check the source of the your figure and see what gives.https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bf3005aedc06205ee7d0b7f0fcd48ce38a74a7eff4a2eec1f765ca980de0f1ff.png
3. Finally, the recently published Loeb et al Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) Top-of-Atmosphere (TOA) Edition 4.0 Data Product J Climate doi 10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0208.1 2017 It’s not open source yet – but you should be able to use your local university library. Some details there on the CERES database and its evoluiton, as well as consistency with a TOA imbalance approaching 0.7 Watts/m^2

RealOldOne2
January 7, 2018 at 2:20 PM

“RealOldRavingLunatic”
Your childish temper tantrum name calling just discredits you and exposes that you are angry because you can’t refute the science that I have presented which proves you wrong.

“but the cause of the increase in ocean heat content, as well as the increase surface temps and glacial ice melt is the increase in greenhouse effect trapping (retaining) on earth. It’s called AGW”
And your claimed AGW is not supported by empirical evidence. • None of the papers you cited and no other peer reviewed papers empirically show anthropogenic causation of the alleged TOA imbalance. If you disagree cite one.
• None of the papers you cited and no other peer reviewed papers empirically show anthropogenic causation of the surface temperature increases. If you disagree cite one.
• None of the papers you cited and no other peer reviewed papers show anthropogenic causation of glacier melting. Glacier melting began before human ghg emissions were significant: https://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2001/07/glacierbaymap.gif

So you’ve given up attempting to defend you debunked AGW heat “retention” claim so you move on to some new handwaving obfuscation.

Sorry, but none of those glacier graphs or reports provide any empirical evidence of melting caused by humans. So your citing papers and posting graphs that just show natural melting is not evidence to support your false human-caused warming meme.

And since there isn’t a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of climate warming, glacier melting is just evidence of natural climate change.

All that confirms what I said that glacier melting began when global temps warmed up naturally at the end of the LIA.
And since the naturally warming has continued and temps haven’t gone back to the cold temps of the LIA, the glaciers continue to melt.
No evidence there to support anthropogenic global warming.

James Owens
January 8, 2018 at 11:06 AM

First, some perspective on the so-called Little Ice Age.
There were no continental glaciers; the temperature dip from the paleoclimate data says was about 1.5° C below today. Then a bump up of about 0.5° C from 1740 to 1850 – with the EXCEPTION of around 1815-1820 with the volcanic eruptions and the so-called Dalton minimum. Then, after 1850 our current 1° C AGW rise.
Second, the glacial retreat does not go back to 1740 – it’s a 20th century issue and is accelerating. Again, take note, depending on the precise circumstances of the glacier – altitude is a key factor, and the very local climate is a factor – so the Hindu Kush glaciers seem to be among those with little change.
So the evidence is coincident with AGW – and those areas where AGW should be raising the temperature most – those glaciers tend to be losing the most mass. So good – but not conclusive. One part of the overall puzzle.
Of course, if you move to Greenland’s ice cap and the ocean heat content or surface temperature or atmospheric (lower troposphere) temperatures – well, all those are stronger individual cases – and again, all those pieces including the land glaciers come together and fit – pointing to AGW.

RealOldOne2
January 8, 2018 at 7:07 PM

Your own climate alarmism religion only claims that human-warming began in the late 20th century. Global temps cooled from 1940 to 1979, Your own graph shows that most of the glacier melting occurred before the late 1970s when the late 20th century warming began.
And the increased solar radiation reaching the surface and the predominance of El Ninos which was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming, caused continued glacier melting.
So glacier melting is only evidence of natural climate warming, not anthropogenic-caused warming.

“Then, after1850 our current 1° C AGW rise”
That’s a false, evidence-free claim. As my comments have shown, the empirical evidence shows that the warming since 1850 is overwhelmingly natural. There isn’t a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows it is not natural, or empirically shows that it is anthropogenic.

“and is accelerating”
No empirical evidence of that, and wouldn’t matter if it was, since the empirical evidence shows that natural warming caused it.

“So the evidence is coincident with AGW”
Wrong, since most of the melting happened prior to human CO2 becoming significant.

“By the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equitable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.” – ‘On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground’, Svante Arrhenius, 1896

And one of his later followers, Guy Callendar also believed that warming would be a good thing.

“In conclusion it may be said that the combustion of fossil fuel, whether it be peat from the surface or oil from 10,000 feet below, is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power. For example the above mentioned increases of mean temperature would be important at the norther margin of cultivation, and the growth of favourable situated plants is directly proportional to the carbon dioxide pressure (Brown and Escombe, 1905). In any case the return of the glaciers should be delayed indefinitely.” – ‘The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature’ – Callendar, 1938

So Callendar was no climate alarmist, although he did promote the wrong-headed CO2 climate warming hypothesis. A valid hypothesis will make accurate predictions. In the same paper, Callendar confidently predicted that his CO2 hypothesis would be confirmed in the coming two decades:

“The course of world temperatures during the next twenty years should afford valuable evidence as to the accuracy of the calculated effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide.” – Callander, ibid

And the comments on Callendar’s paper shared the some of the same criticisms as today’s critics of the CO2 hypothesis have. Sir George Simpson said:

“that it was impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation. The atmosphere was not in a state of radiative equilibrium, and it also received heat transfer from one part to another. In the second place one had to remember that the temperature distribution in the atmosphere was determined almost entirely by the movement of the air up and down. This forced the atmosphere into a temperature distribution which was quite out of balance with radiation. One could not, therefore, calculate the effect of changing any one factor in the atmosphere, and he felt that the actual numerical results which Mr. Callendar obtained could not be used to give a definite indication of the order of magnitude of the effect.” – ibid

This correct Callendar’s incorrect statement: “If the whole surface of the earth is considered as a unit upon which a certain amount of heat falls each day, it is obvious that the mean temperature will depend on the rate that this heat can escape by radiation, because no other type of heat exchange is possible.” This same error is made by today’s proponents of the failed CO2 hypothesis.

Simpson also stated: “Lastly he thought that the rise in CO2 content and temperature during the last 50 years, must be taken rather as a coincidence.”
The 4 decades of real world temperature data showed that Simpson’s statement was correct, since humans added twice as much CO2 to the atmosphere in those 4 decades as had been added prior to 1938, and global temperature DECREASED, not increased.

Just as today, real scientists pointed out the flaws in the failed CO2 hypothesis.

“Oh my, RealOldRavingLunatic”
I see that the facts, data and science that I presented and which you can’t refute has triggered your name calling tantrum again. Sad.

“you’ve posted the Easterbrook stuff about the Greenland GISP2 core.”
You are denying reality and just making stuff up again. The Greenland temperature graph I posted clearly states “Data: R.B. Alley …”.

“a single site starting at 9000 feet up on the center of the Greenland ice sheet is supposed to represent the temperature record for the entire globe”
You are fabricating a strawman. I never made that claim. I posted the Greenland temperature graph to refute your false claim “if you move to Greenland’s ice cap … those pieces including the land glaciers point and fit – pointing to AGW”.

It shows natural warming from the earliest measured temperature in 1866 to 1940. Not even the IPCC claims that warming was anthropogenic. Then during the period the IPCC claims human-caused warming, the temperature record shows a cooling trend to take temps back to the levels of the 1800s. Your claim of AGW-driven warming is evidence-free propaganda of your climate alarmist religion.

You once again failed to refute anything I posted, and you distract from my original comment showing that there has been no significant CO2-induced warming. Sad.

James Owens
January 9, 2018 at 12:40 PM

What you posted from Easterbrook (remember, I provided the What’sUp link) was nonsense.
Now – to insert some science – Milankovitch cycles – when did the truly high Arctic (80 N and above) receive its greatest insolation? Answer, between 8000 and 11000 years BP. So regionally, this time period is likely to be the warmest recently for this region of earth. But again, for climate, you need to understand the ENTIRE global to get that global average.
Meanwhile, continue the temperature graph on from about 1990 thru 2017 – that’s when the greatest increase in overall Arctic temps have occurred – would be interesting to see what this site has done.

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 1:14 PM

“What you posted from Easterbrook”
Why do you continue to lie? The graph that I posted was not from Easterbrook. The link you provided does NOT contain the graph that I posted. You are fabricating lies. Sad.

Once again, you are lying and dodging by posting propaganda talking points from your climate cult religion.

You’ve posted nothing that refutes the temperature and CO2 data that I have posted which shows that CO2 has not caused any climate warming.

Ned Christy
January 8, 2018 at 8:23 PM

Well Real Old One you just wasted a great amount of time and energy trying to prove your false point that human emitted GHGs didn’t cause the mountain glaciers to melt like the are now.. You are wrong ROOne.

Here’s why? You wrote, > (“Glacier melting began before human ghg emissions were significant:”)… You are correct with that one comments.

The mountain glaciers melt some in spring summer and early fall every year and then recover in the cold weather and snowfall.

The mountain glaciers and polar ice had begun to melt when the atmospheric CO2 level rose above the300ppm level but also recovered a great deal annually until the CO2 level rose above the 340ppm level.

Since the CO2 level rose above the 370ppm the ice melt around the globe is at the tipping point where it will ALL melt unless something major happens to reverse it.

RealOldOne2
January 7, 2018 at 2:27 PM

Comment posted before finished. Reload.

Li D
January 8, 2018 at 2:51 PM

“Recent studies show the world’s ocean is heating up as it absorbs most of the extra heat being added to the climate system from the build-up of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.”
With due respect to the organisation that wrote this, i reckon its very sloppily phrased and is not strictly an accurate reflection on what is happening.
The ocean is not really absorbing extra heat so much as holding on to it more than usual. The root cause is still greater than usual amounts of GHGs, in particular CO2.

James Owens
January 8, 2018 at 3:15 PM

It’s accurate in terms of basic heat transfer and capacity.
You may want to check some of the figures in the above comments. The Cheng et al 2017 figure shows the increase in heat content of the oceans (the blue sections) and then they take the increased GHG heat and multiply it by 93% – that’s the 93% TOA (top of atmosphere) yellow line. The formal statement in the Nov 2017 US Climate Assessment was

The world’s oceans have absorbed about 93% of the excess heat caused by greenhouse gas warming since the mid-20th century, making them warmer and altering global and regional climate feedbacks. (Very high confidence) (Ch. 13) Ocean heat content has increased at all depths since the 1960s and surface waters have warmed by about 1.3° ± 0.1°F (0.7° ± 0.08°C) per century globally since 1900 to 2016.

Li D
January 9, 2018 at 6:57 AM

Again, im not overly comfortable with the phrasing in that formal statement. Its dosnt represent whats going on at the cool skin. Even if the formal statement is nessessarily brief, it should still be accurate.
Im absolutely on the side of good science and thetefore support the AGW thesis, like i reckon you do.
I would preferred the phrasing to be something like ” The oceans, due to anthropogenic forcings, have retained energy normally lost and that retention represents the vast majority ( 93%) of energy gained in the total system.”
Or something like that anyhow.
My english aint that smick.
They ( the oceans ) havnt really absorbed extra heat as stated.
The issue is they aint losing energy at the same rate that its coming in.
This makes the recent temporary losses of energy to atmosphere in the recent El Nino even more incredible!
Its all terribly bloody sensitive and gives me the heebeejeebees as to what El Ninos in say 50 years time could be like. A great big spike on top of an already terrifyingly fast trend.
I would like to thank you for being on the side of science and i feel a little bad that im quibbling. But with the way these deniers carry on, accuracy and truth is important to maintain.
One can readily see how they misinterpret just about everything already! I swear its like a cognitive disease or disorder they have. If they wernt such selfish, arrogant , rude, up themselves pricks all the time id nearly feel sorry for them.
Like someone with oldtimers disease maybe.

BigWaveDave
January 21, 2018 at 11:27 PM

Im absolutely on the side of good science and thetefore support the AGW thesis …

If you are on the side of good science, why can’t you state a theory that explains how it could be physically possible for CO2 in our atmosphere to have caused measurable warming?

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 11:37 AM

The only thing CO2 heats is the other non-GHG molecules in the air. Only about 1 time in a billion does an IR excited CO2 molecule actually re-radiate a photon. CO2 serves 2 functions in the atmosphere: 1) to redistribute heat to the non-GHG N2, O2 etc molecules; and 2) to radiate IR to outer space at altitude, thus COOLING the earth.

James Owens
January 9, 2018 at 12:49 PM

David, the upwelling longwave IR from the surface heat emission and the downwelling longwave IR from the greenhouse effect are recorded at a number of ground stations. Here’s some older data from the Desert Rock Nevada site (NOAA) in the winter with lower insolation and lower temps and in the summer with higher insolation and higher temps – these are monthly averages:
January 2014
Desert Rock ……. upwelling….. 358.66 W/m^2
Desert Rock ……. downwelling 268.10 W/m^2
July 2014
Desert Rock ……. upwelling….. 516.57 W/m^2
Desert Rock ……. downwelling 383.45 W/m^2
So the quantity of energy in the downwelling greenhouse energy is significant.
You can consult the overall energy balances for the global averages like this figure from Martin Wild – it provides the calculations from several groups and shows that they are gradually converging as more and more data is gathered from satellites and ground stations – figure legend is included so you can identify papers by their color codehttps://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e58edf39bbd49237c50d43bc4de66d737e8a10f6a6341c4388f8c0a417fbcb4d.png

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 1:05 PM

In reverse order:

Your graph demonstrates exactly my point that there’s no 330W/M2 up-radiation to ma tch the 330W/M2 back-radiation. Did you miss that? Of course you did.

As for what is measured, I acknowledged that Earths surface temp is 288K. Earth only gets 60 W/M2 from the sun that it emits as IR. The so called back radiation is 330. 330+60=390 W/M2 which equates to 288K. It’s all circular and merely assumes the 330 is from CO2 back radiation, which js impossible. The air is radiating 330 because of its temperature. All thing radiate in proportion to temperture. BUT the explanation isn’t from CO2 warming by amplifying surface IR by over 6x. Something else is going on.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 1:08 PM

Something else is going on.

No, you’re just too much of a moron to understand basic physics.

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 1:51 PM

Halush teaches science part time at Krispy-Kreme University.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 1:58 PM

So quickly to your corner today David?

Your inability to learn about or understand climate science is on full display.

Here’s an easy question that even you should be able to answer.

Do two bodies in thermal equilibrium exchange energy with one another?

James Owens
January 9, 2018 at 6:23 PM

David, please look again. First, the shortwave solar is in yellow and the longwave heat or thermal emission is an orange-red.
The upwelling longwave IR radiation is labeled “thermal up surface” at about 398 Watts/m^2 – again, a global average.
The average for the downwelling or backradiation IR is around 342 Watts/m^2 in the more recent studies.
And take into account – the downwelling IR has been spectrally scanned as has most of spectrum for the outgoing from satellite.
Each different molecule – water, CO2, methane, ozone, and so on has a particular wavelength spectrum or signature. These are followed in both cases – most people have done basic spectra in organic chem in college and some high school AP courses provide an introduction.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 12:55 PM

You’re an incompetent moron David.

If you think you understand climate science, then where does the 15 micron downwelling radition come from in this measured spectrum?

I agree with you and especially you saying, > (“The root cause is still greater than usual amounts of GHGs, in particular CO2.”)..

One reason the rise of atmospheric CO2 has risen to near 3.5ppm a year is the huge amount of methane, CH4 which has been pouring out of melting Arctic permafrost since 2004 has been chemically reverting to water vapor and CO2.

The next major increase of releasing CH4 since 2008 which has accelerated every year since, will begin to show up as a major increase of CO2 in the next three years.

In my opinion, which is an opinion, but as good any, we will begin to witness the annual increase of atmospheric CO2 rise to near 6ppm a year and see that accelerate every year after… As the scientist warned, the Arctic methane feedback loop is the most dangerous of all.

david russell
January 10, 2018 at 10:39 PM

Your last paragraph is an evidence-free claim or it makes no sense (I vacillate between these alternatives). So it either needs support or better presentation — maybe both.

Ned Christy
January 8, 2018 at 7:58 PM

Thank you for your excellent arguments James but I disagree with the scientists who gave those figures in one area.

The Arctic Ice on both land and sea has to be far more than just 0,8% as the Arctic region has warmed twice as fast as the rest of the planet.

There are glaciers on islands in the Arctic Ocean which have lost 40 feet of height a year since 2015.

The permafrost land in the Arctic Circle has been melting away like a sack of ice cubes laying on a hot road.

I don’t believe the Greenland ice sheet data is anywhere near accurate either…. Anyway you are doing a great job here.

James Owens
January 9, 2018 at 8:44 AM

Ned, it’s not an area percentage – it’s the portion of the total added heat from human AGW that goes into melting the ice – point is the oceans are the gorilla, and that’s what has to be measured to understand the earth’s energy imbalance.

CB
January 9, 2018 at 1:44 PM

Did you notice this?

“the only ocean-atmosphere heat exchange process that adds heat to the ocean is solar radiation”

“the only ocean-atmosphere heat exchange process that adds heat to the ocean is solar radiation”

RealOldOne2 is David Russell!!!”

No, I assure you that David Russell & I are not the same person. Your thinking that because two people hold a scientifically correct understanding means that they are the same person just demonstrates your woeful lack of reasoning and critical thinking skills.

“He’s the only person I’ve ever seen make such an idiotic claim.”
You obviously are ignorant of science, calling the Earth and Environmental Science department of Columbia University “idiots”, because their lecture ‘Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling’ clearly shows that the only ocean-atmosphere heat exchange process that transfers heat into the ocean is solar radiation: “Solar heating of the ocean on a global average is 168 watts per square meter.”
All other ocean-atmosphere heat exchange processes transfer heat out of the oceans. – http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html

Ned Christy
January 9, 2018 at 7:45 PM

I didn’t catch it but always was sure Really Old One had several socks… Guess it’s Russell who has the socks…. I’m sure you are right, good catch CB.

I have no sockpuppet accounts. I’ve only posted with my genuine RealOldOne2 account (with 24,000+ comments) for the last ~decade, formerly on YouTube and now on Disqus.

CB
January 10, 2018 at 4:24 PM

Ermagerd, and he’s a youtube veteran, like me!

I wonder if I know him!

There were some truly ludicrous characters back in the day…

Ned Christy
January 10, 2018 at 7:31 PM

This is rich… Real Old One asked me to prove CO2 was the thermostat for the planet’s temperature, said post a peer reviewed paper that says that.

So I posted a NASA article which is peer reviewed and published in Journal Science that says CO2 is the thermostat for the planet’s temperature. I added another link for an article with dozens of articles about CO2.

Old One replied in less than 3o seconds and said he opened the links and the articles did not say CO2 was the thermostat for the planet’s surface temperature… He Lied. That was the very first sentence in the first article I linked for him.

I called him out on it and pasted a cut and paste of what he had written…. He came back and says he never said that and he deleted it. I kept the email copy of it in my documents. he is not just a liar, he is a stupid liar and is despicable to boot.

RealOldOne2
January 11, 2018 at 1:43 AM

Poor Ned, you are so pathetically dishonest. I will document in this comment that you have told 6 lies in your comment.

“This is rich”
The only thing that is rich is that your comment shows that you are devoid of logic, reason and critical thinking skills, in addition to being totally dishonest.

“Real Old One asked me to prove CO2 was the thermostat for the planet’s temperature, said post a peer reviewed paper that says that.”That is Ned’s LIE #1.
That’s a total misrepresentation of what I asked you. After I posted empirical data showing that CO2 lagged temperature & Humlum paper quotes, you said: “That has been proven to be wrong information”.
Then what I asked you was: “Post your empirical data and peer reviewed science to back up your claim”
So I asked for empirical data and peer reviewed science supporting your claim with that data. I never asked you for a paper “saying” CO2 was the earth’s thermostat.
In fact, the whole “thermostat” issues hadn’t even been raised up to that point. You raised the “thermostat” issue in your reply. This is all documented in this screen capture: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/da8dcd3ea7093e7637175552c96b37b48ea2f99542cb8c3da75c1e21ef134866.png

“So I posted a NASA article which is peer reviewed and published in Journal Science that says CO2 is the thermostat for the planet’s temperature. I added another link for an article with dozens of articles about CO2.”
I’ve already told you numerous times that saying that CO2 is the thermostat that controls the earth’s temperature is not proof that CO2 is the earth’s thermostat. Continuing to make your claim reveals your denial of reality.

Ned’s LIE #2.
You did NOT post a “link for an article with dozens of articles about CO2”. All you did was post a link to a bunch of images, not articles about CO2.

“Old One replied in less than 30 seconds”That’s Ned’s LIE #3.
When you look at the time stamp on my comment, http://www.cfact.org/2018/01/02/no-co2-warming-for-the-last-40-years/#comment-3700318325 , and the time stamp on Ned’s comment to which I replied, you will see that my reply was 7 minutes later, not the “less than 30 seconds”. In those 7 minutes I opened the first link and saw it was the Lacis paper which climate model based and provided no empirical evidence of co2 changes leading temperature changes, and I saw that the 2nd link was to a bunch of images. Ned had told this “30 seconds” & “25 second” lie twice before.

“and said he opened the links and the articles did not say CO2 was the thermostat for the planet’s surface temperature”That’s Ned’s LIE #4.
I never said that the articles did not “say” that CO2 was the planet’s thermostat. My entire reply was:

The comment where I discussed opening the links happened later when you made the false claim that I “didn’t even open the links”. My reply to that comment was: “I opened the links and saw that they did not show that CO2 changes preceded temperature changes or that CO2 was the earth’s thermostat.” Again, I did not “say” that your article didn’t say that CO2 was the earth’s thermostat, I said that it did not “show” that CO2 was the earth’s thermostat. Here’s the screen capture confirming what I have said: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b070a905ebe8237a26cef4981402975f2e89d46693f737366e0e453430c3eeb0.png

“He Lied. That was the very first sentence in the first article”
No, as we’ve seen, you are the one doing the lying. Again, the 1st sentence was just a CLAIM, not empirical data showing that CO2 caused temperature change. My explanation of this to you is near the bottom of the 2nd screen capture that I posted here.

“and he deleted it.”That is Ned’s LIE #6
I didn’t go back and delete it. Anyone can follow this link to my comment and see that it is exactly the same as your quote.

“he is not just a liar, he is a stupid liar and is despicable to boot”
I just proved that I have not lied.
I have just proved that YOU are the liar.
And you proved that you were projecting on the “stupid liar and is despicable to boot”.

Poor Ned, you have been totally discredited as a dishonest troll who lies with impunity, posting lie after lie. Sad.

Ned Christy
January 11, 2018 at 3:04 AM

I won’t waste a lot of words replying to your lies here… I already have in the prior sequence of comments.

Ned Christy
January 11, 2018 at 4:10 AM

Hey Old One2, my comment history unlike yours is open…. Go to my comment history and scroll down about 33 comments and stop at the comment which reads, > (“Here Old One study all of this and you should be educated on the subject… Come back in a year or two and show your stuff.”)>

You will see two links, open the first one again but this time read what it says…. The first sentence says CO2 is the thermostat for the planet’s surface temperature.

Rea don and it says NASA’s new study was peer reviewed and published in Journal Science… You have previously stated the NASA study is not any good but I say it is and I won’t deny the science as you are doing. It is a NEW study Old One and overrules any prior comments to the contrary until someone should prove it is wrong.

“I am far from poor”
You may not be poor money-wise , but you are poor in intellect, poor in intelligence, poor in understanding the English language, poor in understanding science, poor in logical thinking skills, poor in critical thinking skills.

“and am not a liar”
My above linked comment shows that you are a pathetic liar.

You said many, many comments that you were finished with me. Yes, just another of your long list of lies. Sad.

Ned Christy
January 11, 2018 at 2:42 PM

Your opinion of me is not something I worry about… If you respected me I would be concerned.

CB
January 11, 2018 at 3:04 PM

“He came back and says he never said that and he deleted it.”

…and now you know why I quote absolutely every single thing I’m responding to!

This is an old youtube trick, and it was quite developed back in the day. There were some posters who would intentionally alter a post after a response to make it appear as if you believed the opposite of what you actually believed.

The fight between halush (Jim K) and David Russell is quite entertaining to watch! I’m cautiously optimistic about Jim! He has the potential to be honest. If he worked very hard at it, it may actually happen…

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 11:35 AM

CO2 concentrations don’t prevent IR from escaping into space — just the opposite (GHG’s are the reason IR escapes to space).

The oceans have been known to be heat sinks for a very, very long time. They are also warmer than the air, so the air can’t cool them, and impervious to CO2 IR. Net/net — the sun warms the ocean.

James Owens
January 9, 2018 at 12:53 PM

The greenhouse gas trap or retain heat from the surface – and then remit it. So at the top of the atmosphere – yes, with the exception of the atmospheric window, much of the longwave IR is actually the greenhouse gas reemission of energy. Meanwhile, the atmosphere is warmer and longwave energy is also be returned to the surface. That greenhouse effect keeps the earth’s surface about 33 degrees C warmer than an atmosphere without greenhouse gases would due to direct loss of the surface emission

halush
January 9, 2018 at 12:59 PM

CO2 concentrations don’t prevent IR from escaping into space

Yes they do moron. Otherwise the absorptivity of the atmosphere would not be measured as this:

More Krispy-Kreme wisdom? CO2 captures 15 micron range IR and distributes the energy thereof to warm the non-GHG, NON-RADIATING molecules nearby IN THE LOWER ATMOSPHERE. The 1 in a billion times said low altitude CO2 absorbed energy is re-radiated, almost all is recaptured and 999,999,999,9999 times out of a billion, there’s just more thermalization (heat redistribution). Convection moves these molecules to altitude where the thinness of the air means said CO2 molecules have the time to emit photons before themalizing nearby molecules. Half this IR re-emitted goes to outer space as the air is so thin at altitude. This cools the air.

Net/net: CO2 redistributes upwelling 15 micron IR to the 99.9% non-GHG molecules near by at low altitudes and cools the atmosphere at high altitude.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 2:11 PM

If CO2 captures radiation, then it is a resistance to heat flow out of the system. Such a resistance to heat flow causes the temperature of the system to increase.

If CO2 captures radiation then it is preventing that radiation from escaping to space you idiot.

That’s basic thermodynamics and heat transfer you ignorant moron.

What would the temperature at high altitude be in the absence of GHGs you imbecile?

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 2:22 PM

Now you are just blathering. One explanation fails, you change to another. For sure CO2 heats the air by capturing 15 micron IR and dissipating all but .000000001% of that to the surrounding O2, N2, and Argon molecules —none of which radiate. Said warmed air rises and cools, which would seem to limit higher air from warming lower air —- at all.

Why the air sends 330W/M2 back to the surface (and not an equal amount up away from the surface) is a mystery that modern climate pseudo-science can’t explain.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 2:25 PM

All of the explanations are consistent David. None have failed. You are simply too stupid to put it all together.

How much 13-17 micron radiation does a sphere of air with surface area of 1m^2 at standard pressure and 288K emit David?

You have no idea. You’re an idiot.

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 2:30 PM

Well, Professor, our time is up. Class is over. I’m sure you’ve convinced no one here. I gave you a number of chances. Better luck tomorrow.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 2:30 PM

Run along moron. That’s your expertise.

John G
March 2, 2018 at 6:56 AM

Great resources, thanks. I blocked RealOldFakeNews2 months ago, because he’s either a paid liar or completely immune to facts. Thank you for not letting his FUD be the last word.

Here’s one of my favorite movies that gives some clues about the bad effects of the warming we’ve already caused, and what is to come if we don’t change off our current greenhouse gas emissions path:

Chasing Coral, available free on Netflix streaming

Here is something everyone can do in a few minutes each month to help enable Congress to act on our behalf with a fair, beneficial, viable approach with global reach: cclusa.org/write

eric m
March 2, 2018 at 1:31 PM

Yes ,blocking him was the way to go ,considering I have never witnessed such a repeated alarmist butt kicking in my life. rather not make a bigger fool of yourself . cut your losses and block.

John G
March 2, 2018 at 9:58 PM

I generally feel it’s more important to ignore the petty insults and respond with facts supported by reliable references. That fraud came back over fifty times with the same ignorant ‘arguments’, never responding to the issues. I’ve blocked only a few people in five years of commenting, but I’ve learned some trolls are just not worth wasting the time. RealOldOne2 is one of them.

There are fair, beneficial, and viable solutions to address the energy market failure. I spend most of my time volunteering with Citizens Climate Lobby helping to create the political will to enable Congress to address the human causes of climate change with federal legislation that will have global reach.

A similar proposal, by a group of conservative economists and endorsed by businesses including Exxon, BP, Shell, GM, J&J, P&G, and others: clcouncil.org

eric m
March 2, 2018 at 10:36 PM

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/68ffe7c31bd41bd12fa7b5692fe7c45eb9f17a432979ea199413c627d5276104.jpg How do you consider him a troll. he simply rebutted every thing that was thrown at him with coherent dialogue and published science . It is you guys that seem to get frustrated and stoop to personal attacks. Now you can choose to block everyone who challenges your beliefs , making it quite obvious that you hold no value to real scientific discussion,and simply wish to push your agenda via your echo chamber. The religion comparison to your belief system is quite valid, because no matter what you are presented with, it is not possible for you to sway away from your narratives. Even if humans are warming the earth via FF,climate science has been by no means a perfect going . It is far in it’s infancy and new discoveries are made all the time. To say all models have been correct is an outright lie. We have had pauses then wild excuses made for pauses then pauses erased from history. Only to discover funny business going on behind the scenes. We have been told of climate refugees and climate wars .first in 2006 then 2011 then 2019 now 2030. all complete nonsense. So not sure why you would have such a closed mind regarding why people are skeptical . When predictions fail time and time again , people start to wanna know why . The more you look into it , the more you see all the obvious shortcomings and failures. you are not even hiding your intent = enriching yourself via carbon tax schemes. So many better uses of money then another tax and another huge bureaucracy .Oh and btw , Global temp are down to pre 2000 levels currently

Why don’t you go back and review the 50+ back and forths your hero RealOldFakeScience2 and I had and prove what you said. My recollection of that is I repeatedly provided mainstream scientific references, and he provided redundant unsupported opinions. My history is open if you wish to try to back up your unsubstantiated claims with real facts.

Now we are past time to act, and even Exxon is recommending a carbon tax: clcouncil.org/founding-members

A fully rebated fee on fossil fuels based on carbon emissions will create jobs (net), grow the economy, position the US to compete in the global clean energy economy the rest of the world is headed for (40 countries already have put a price on carbon emissions), and will help the poor. It will also eliminate a lot of other pollution, property rights issues, and international tensions.

eric m
March 5, 2018 at 1:01 AM

Here is another New paper that contradicts Your religion: Arctic sea ice extent is greater now than at any time during the Holocene except during the Little Ice Age. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.2929/epdf?r3_referer=wol&tracking_action=preview_click&show_checkout=1&purchase_referrer=www.google.ca&purchase_site_license=LICENSE_DENIED

John G
March 5, 2018 at 7:41 AM

Eric, you made a personal insult (ironically, the very thing you recently complained that those concerned about human-caused climate change do all the time), followed by a cherry-picked fact for which you omitted the key points!

Is that all you got?

Perhaps rather than hoping to deceive, you are just unaware that when an enormous amount of polar ice (land-based and thick, thousands of years old sea ice) is melted, as we have done, it reduces the salinity if the surrounding ocean surface. That less-salty water freezes at a higher temperature than the water it replaced, but because the air above and water below are warmer, that new thin ice is usually lost (plus a lot more) each following year.

I don’t think you could be that ignorant, but the only alternative I can think of is that you are simply trying to mislead. I wonder what the reason really is!

The quality and type of ice is changing in the Arctic, as any scientific study will show. The big picture of a melting Arctic is why cruise lines are now offering Northwest Passage cruises, oil companies are considering expanding polar operations, and Russia is staking claim to polar regions that were previously inaccessible.

I wonder about your methods. Do your shallow attempts to manipulate readers’ opinions by accusing those you disagree with of the very tactics you ploy, cherry-picking little data points out of the enormous body of scientific evidence out of context, and aggressively treating others like dirt actually work? I know those tactics used to work, because for thirty years although we’ve known through science that we better address the problem, we did not do so.

But now, it’s really just ignorant people that were deceived by the past PR of the fossil fuel industry, and the hold-out free market fundamentalists leading your effort to delay rational actions. Even most of the oil and gas companies are on board with addressing the problem now, because they know the science and they know we are close to reaching the point of big, perhaps irreversible problems.

Eric, do you have a money trail? Do you get money from Koch directly or indirectly? The Harvard researcher’s study about the money and ideology that prevented rational actions to address the causes of human-caused global warming expose the fraud of your side. If you have been tricked into thinking what you are doing is right, I suggest you read (or watch the movie) Merchants of Doubt. Or even watch this book-tour lecture:https://youtu.be/LNPRgR-2o-A

Then read the two-page Highlights section of the Executive Summary of the recently released Fourth National Climate Assessment from NOAA, NASA, the DOE, the National Academy of Sciences, a dozen other scientific agencies, to learn some basic facts about what we know through science.

I do endorse Carbon Fee and Dividend with border adjustments to address the problem. But Eric, I do not do it to “enrich myself” as you say is my intent (Is that another personal attack? That makes it about one personal attack in each sentence in your long reply. Who did you say is guilty of making those?).

Carbon fee and dividend will not help me any more than it will help two thirds of all Americans. The bottom 10% of households by income come out the best, with an average 9% gain in real income per person for those households. I will come out ahead, but just barely, like most in the middle income households.

There is a good TED talk on this page about why we should use a fully rebated carbon fee to address the problem. This particular solution is endorsed by leading Conservative economists and many big businesses: clcouncil.org

My preference is Carbon Fee and Dividend, because it is a more pure play: cclusa.org

Li D
January 7, 2018 at 5:58 AM

Your spiel is gunna wash with denier morons because it dosnt contain all the information required. You are leaving out critical pieces of science either unintentionally, ( in which case learn more, [ But then you wouldnt be a climate denier if you knew more! ]) or intentionally, in which case you practice scummy manipulative writing through ommision.
Go and read up on conduction and gradients.
Its bollocks to say ” ohhh only solar can heat the ocean ” without completing the entire picture, which is , in the case of AGW, a warmer atmosphere temp lessening the gradient to ocean temps and thence reducing conduction of heat back to the atmosphere.
Briefly, solar heats the water , but AGW slows its release, and so the heat content is rising.
Now, are you ignorant or malicious? You choose mate.
If one wants they can do simple experiments in the home to understand conduction stuff better. Ask a librarian or school teacher for resources. Be careful though. If ya learn a bit ya might get indoctrinated into the NASA communist UN conspiracy!
Li D
Australia

Robert
January 8, 2018 at 4:33 PM

You’ve just about summed up the whole ‘debate’ in one sentence

“You are leaving out critical pieces of science either unintentionally, ( in which case learn more, [ But then you wouldnt be a climate denier if you knew more! ]) or intentionally, in which case you practice scummy manipulative writing through ommision.”

Well done!

Li D
January 9, 2018 at 4:46 AM

Er, thankyou very much for the compliment. May I return it by expressing admiration for yours and others stoicism in challenging the pathetic crap stated by several commenters
here.
Li D
Australia

Ned Christy
January 8, 2018 at 7:48 PM

The rise of temperature of the ocean waters is not naturel Real Old One. It is caused by a much stronger Greenhouse Gas effect in the atmosphere…

A natural increase in temperature would have to be due to a change of radiation from the sun or a dramatic change of atmospheric cloud cover which has not happened.. What has happened is an increase of atmospheric CO2, CH4 and N20 since the 1970s.

The current atmospheric Co2 level is above 407ppm now and rising at near 3.5ppm a year. The strong global warming feedback loops Al Gore warned would happen if we didn’t reduce our CO2 emissions have begun to kick in because globally we didn’t reduce them and in addition continues destroying the world’s forests… None of that is NATURAL Real Old One.

RealOldOne2
January 8, 2018 at 11:13 PM

“The rise of temperature of the ocean waters is not naturel[sic] Real Old One.”
Wrong. It is almost entirely natural, because the only physical mechanism that transfers heat into the oceans is solar radiation.

Wrong… Solar radiation is where the heat comes from,,,, the atmosphere’s Greenhouse Gas effect determines the planet’s surface temperature. So there are two elements to consider… Solar radiation and the Greenhouse Gas effect.

You wish to ignore the Greenhouse Gas effect and the fact CO2 is a very important part of it. You wish to argue humans burning fossil fuels have no effect on the surface temperature of the planet…. You are wrong. You are wrong along with all other AGW deniers.

Why can’t anyone state a theory that explains how this stupid idea could be physically possible?

Ned Christy
January 9, 2018 at 5:13 AM

Scientists stated such a theory more than a 100 years ago… Their theory was shown to be correct with lab experiements and by mathematics, physics.

The theory of Greenhouse Gases was peer reviewed, accepted and published in a Science Journal and has been accepted by every science community on Earth ever since by the vast majority of scientists.

Of many thousands of scientists from over 198 scientific communities less than a dozen scientists or science professors disagree with the science of Greenhouse Gases and no one has ever proven the Greenhouse Gas theory is incorrect… In addition, those scientists and or science professors who disagree with the Greenhouse Gas theory are paid money by the fossil fuel industry to do so or have ties to the fossil fuel insustry.

Any questions?

Ned Christy
January 9, 2018 at 5:32 AM

You say the planet’s temperature is ONLY from solar radiation… Explain why during the Little Ice Age the sun’s radiation was stronger than it is today but an ice age developed…… At least you don’t say El Nino is a source of planet heat.

Explain why solar radiation allows the moon’s surface temperature to very rapidly drop to over a minus -260 degrees F when the sun goes down.

If our moon had an atmosphere like that of Earth, the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would GLOBALLY keep the surface temperature of the moon well above freezing at night ,,, just as it does on Earth.

Without CO2 in our atmosphere, Earth would be a ball of ice, even if it dropped to 180ppm the planet would be a ball of ice.

BigWaveDave
January 9, 2018 at 12:48 PM

Before you change the subject, what is your theory that explains how CO2 could physically control temperature?

Ned Christy
January 9, 2018 at 7:57 PM

What makes you think I would change the subject Dave? You being obtuse and ignorant again?

The atmospheric CO2 is the “Thermostat” for the planet’s surface temperature…. More CO2 higher Temp, low CO2 less heat.

“So while carbon dioxide contributes less to the overall greenhouse effect than water vapor, scientists have found that carbon dioxide is the gas that sets the temperature. Carbon dioxide controls the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and thus the size of the greenhouse effect.”

Climate realists views are based on logic, facts and empirical data, not magic.

A fact the alarmists are very well aware of, hence the FAKE temperature data ..

Ned Christy
January 9, 2018 at 9:55 PM

I backed up my comments with science articles by NASA…

Ned Christy
January 9, 2018 at 5:01 AM

Once again you blame global warming on El Nino. You wrote. , quote, > (“Wrong. The warming since 1997 has been natural, due to the 2015-2016 El Nino. Prior to that natural warming, the atmosphere hadn’t warmed at all: “).

So, tell us how El Nino produces heat Old One… The truth is El Nino is the result of heat, not a cause of heat and cannot produce any heat.

For years you using names ReallyOldOne and RealOldOne2 have been arguing that the Greenhouse effect has no impact at all on the surface temperature of the planet. It is Only sunbeams that heat the planet you say and continue to say so here and now you add El Nino to the warming… Foolish.. No matter who may say that it is WRONG.

You are wrong, Real Old One, so are any other AGW deniers who claim the very low amount of atmospheric CO2 has no impact on the surface temperature of the planet.

The atmospheric CO2 level is the driving force for the planet’s surface temperature as it amplifies the heat trapping of the water vapor.

“Scientific studies of greenhouse gases discovered the most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousands.

Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere.”

“For years you using names ReallyOldOne”
Wrong. The only name I have posted under is my present RealOldOne2. And be aware that ROO2, who also posts under Dan, serially impersonates me by posting with my exact same username, but you can see that it’s not me, because his Disqus ID is @disqus_HD8vYfKDcv , not @RealOldOne2.

“The atmospheric CO2 level is the driving force for the planet’s surface temperature”
That’s an evidence-free claim. There isn’t a peer reviewed paper in existence that empirically shows that CO2 has been the primary cause of any climate warming. The empirical data shows that temperature changes drive CO2 changes, because the data shows that temperatures change first, and then CO2 changes later. A cause must happen before the effect.

You are merely repeating the false dogmas/talking points of your climate alarmist religion.

Ned Christy
January 9, 2018 at 7:49 PM

Hey Oldie, El Nino does not produce any heat. If anyone says it does they are stupid.

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 7:55 PM

“Hey Oldie, El Nino does not produce any heat. IF anyone says it does they are stupid.”
El Nino’s transfer heat from the ocean to the atmosphere.
So sad that you call Columbia Univ. Earth & Environmental Department “stupid”:

“El Nino and Global Warming – What’s the Connection … Although El Nino’s strongest impacts are found around the equatorial Pacific, they can affect weather around the world by influencing high and low pressure systems, winds and precipitation. And as the warmer ocean waters release excess energy (heat) into the atmosphere, global temperatures rise.” – Columbia Univ. Earth Institute, http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2016/02/02/el-nino-and-global-warming-whats-the-connection/

Ned Christy
January 9, 2018 at 8:23 PM

Geezus you are really dense… “EL Nino” are two WORDS that describe the situation when the Pacific Ocean waters’ warm a few degrees F and that alters the ocean currents which effects the weather around the world…. El Nino are just words. El Nino is not the issue, atmospheric CO2 and planet surface temperature are the issue.

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 8:27 PM

” “El Nino are two WORDS … El Nino are just words.”
Do you realize how ignorant and silly that is?
Let’s use Ned-logic then:
Ned-logic: global warming is just two words, it can do nothing.
Ned-logic: carbon dioxide is just two words, it can cause nothing.
….
See how ignorant and silly your comment is?
Sadly, probably you don’t.

Ned Christy
January 9, 2018 at 9:53 PM

One LAST time Old One… When the Pacific Ocean waters warm a few degrees F near the tropical region, it alters the Pacific Ocean currents…. That causes a change in weather patterns along the west coast of the Americas and some changes around the globe… That warming is caused by higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Years ago when that happened, the Spanish termed it an El Nino year…. That is what El Nino is when discussing the warming of the Pacific Ocean waters’… That is all it is, El Nino is not any cause of warming or climate changes.

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 10:04 PM

“That is all it is, El Nino is not any cause of warming or climate changes.”

“El Nino and Global Warming – What’s the Connection … Although El Nino’s strongest impacts are found around the equatorial Pacific, they can affect weather around the world by influencing high and low pressure systems, winds and precipitation. And as the warmer ocean waters release excess energy (heat) into the atmosphere, global temperatures rise.” – Columbia Univ. Earth Institute, http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2016/02/02/el-nino-and-global-warming-whats-the-connection/

Since 1997 the ocean has accumulated more heat than the longer period to 1997 from 1958. And that heat accumulation occurred during a period where that has been increased dimming over the worlds oceans too:

Perhaps we could get back to our previous discussion where you claimed bodies at thermal equilibrium radiate no EM energy because energy travelling in opposite directions would violate the 2nd law. I’m waiting to hear:

– How it is possible to see your reflection in a mirror;
– How your sentient detector that can see beyond the observable universe works;
– How you have managed to create a standing wave of EM which is not comprised of two opposing energy fluxes and also has a velocity of zero, therefore defying the universal constant of the speed of light?

Hi Old One… You wrote, > (“The empirical evidence shows that it is caused by natural forcing, a predominance of El Ninos”)…

What causes an El Nino year Real Old One? I will answer the question for you.. When the surface temperature of the Pacific Ocean rises a few degrees F near the tropical zones, it alters the Pacific Ocean’s currents which in turn causes major climate and weather changes along the North American western shores.

Year ago the Spanish termed that type of year an El Nino year…. El Nino does not cause rises in temperature… A rise in temperature causes an El Nino.

RealOldOne2
January 8, 2018 at 10:02 PM

“A rise in temperature causes an El Nino.”
Correct, a rise in ocean temperature. And the only physical mechanism which transfers heat into the ocean is solar radiation. So an El Nino, is a natural phenomenon which releases stored solar energy from the ocean to the atmosphere, and can raise the annual global temperature of the atmosphere by as much as 0.5C. They cause natural warming, not anthropogenic warming.

Ned Christy
January 8, 2018 at 10:12 PM

An EL Nino can do nothing. EL Nino are WORDS that describe an event in the Pacific Ocean when the water temp rises a few degrees F…..

The sunbeams always heat the planet, the amount of GHGs determine the planet’s surface temperature. The most important GHG is CO2 without it the planet would be a ball of ice.

RealOldOne2
January 8, 2018 at 11:13 PM

“An El Nino can do nothing.”
Wrong. El Ninos release heat from the ocean into the atmosphere and raise global temperatures:

“El Nino and Global Warming – What’s the Connection … Although El Nino’s strongest impacts are found around the equatorial Pacific, they can affect weather around the world by influencing high and low pressure systems, winds and precipitation. And as the warmer ocean waters release excess energy (heat) into the atmosphere, global temperatures rise.” – Columbia Univ. Earth Institute, http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2016/02/02/el-nino-and-global-warming-whats-the-connection/

“the amount of GHGs determine the planet’s surface temperature.”
Wrong. It’s been known for decades that the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface determines the earth’s temperature:

“It follows from the analysis of observation data that the secular variation in the mean temperature of the Earth can be explained by the variation of shortwave radiation arriving at the surface of the Earth.” – Budyko(1969) ‘The effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the Earth’

“The most important GHG is CO2”
Wrong, water vapor is the most important ghg.
• “The main greenhouse gas, water vapour” – IPCC FAR, p.xi
• “Water vapour has the largest greenhouse effect” – IPCC FAR, p.xv
• “Water vapour is the strongest greenhouse gas.” – IPCC TAR, p.88

You continue to demonstrate that you don’t understand climate science. Sad.

Ned Christy
January 9, 2018 at 3:10 AM

No the ocean waters release heat, too much heat that was caused by too much CO2 in the Greenhouse gases from humans burning fossil fuels…. That is what you are arguing about, the AGW greenhouse gas effect. El Nino is just a word for when the Pacific Ocean currents alter their normal course due to warming ocean waters and El Nino does not warm the water, El Nino is a result of warming water.

Stop using the excuse it is the El Nino warming the water.

BigWaveDave
January 9, 2018 at 5:05 AM

Your nonsense has no supporting theory. If it did, you would be able to state it, or quote someone who stated it.

The fact is that that there is no physical way for the CO2 in our atmosphere to measurably influence temperature or climate.

Ned Christy
January 9, 2018 at 5:21 AM

On the contrary BigWaveDave, the evidence that the Greenhouse Gas theory is correct is overwhelming and accepted by every science community on the planet, 198 of them and less than a dozen scientists or professors of science disagree with the Greenhouse Gas theory of science while many thousands of scientists do agree.

So it is rather obvious that it is you who is spouting off nonsense. Prove the Greenhouse Gas theory is incorrect Dave. Do that and become one of the most famous scientists ever since Dr. Albert Einstein…. Go to Princeton University and give your theory to the scientific community. Prove Dr John Tyndall’s theory is wrong.

BigWaveDave
January 9, 2018 at 11:54 AM

blockquote> Prove the Greenhouse Gas theory is incorrect Dave.

Since you can’t state or quote a theory that explains how the stupid idea that CO2 is controlling the temperature of our atmosphere, could be possibe; there is nothing for me to prove incorrect.

Ned Christy
January 9, 2018 at 8:03 PM

I can state or quote such a theory… I wasn’t aware you are unaware of Dr. John Tyndall’s theory of Greenhouse Gases.

It was peer reviewed and published in a Science Journal more than a 100 years ago and has been accepted science by the vast majority of scientists who belong to the 198 science communities around the world.

Try and get yourself educated on the subject before you try to discuss it.

BigWaveDave
January 21, 2018 at 11:45 PM

State a theory that explains how it would not be idiotic to believe that measurable change in Earth’s surface temperature could be caused by the CO2 in our atmosphere.

Ned Christy
January 22, 2018 at 5:48 AM

Sorry Dave but the theory that CO2 is the thermostat for the surface temperature of Earth has already been proven with physics and the study published, peer reviewed and then published in Journal Science and it is accepted science.

If you disagree with that it is up to you to prove that science theory is wrong. Give it your best shot Dave.

A modelling study is not a theory. This is especially so if the modelling study is being performed by idiots who to believe the CO2 in their models should control temperature.

Ned Christy
January 22, 2018 at 5:44 AM

Big Dave… CO2 IS the thermostat for the planet’s surface temperature. Why don’t you know that?

BigWaveDave
January 22, 2018 at 12:52 PM

Ned,

There is no known possible way that CO2 could control the planet’s surface temperature. If there were, someone would have been able to state a theory, and that would be used to sell the meme, rather than the emotional straw man arguments and appeals to authority that are used to sell this fraud and brainwash kids.

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 1:17 PM

“No the ocean waters release heat, too much heat that was caused by too much CO2 …”
You are exposing your denial of reality again. As I’ve told you and as you’ve never refuted, the only physical mechanism that transfers heat into the oceans is solar radiation.

“Stop using the excuse it is the El Nino warming the water.”

Stop fabricating strawmen. I never said that El Nino was warming the water. I’ve said numerous times that solar radiation is the only physical mechanism that can warm the water/transfer heat into it.

Ned Christy
January 10, 2018 at 7:57 PM

Go back and read what you actually have written about El Nino Old One.

Ned Christy
January 10, 2018 at 8:28 PM

Real Old One you speak lies so often that I don’t think you even realize you are lying.

You wrote, > (“Stop fabricating strawmen. I never said that El Nino was warming the water. Here is what you wrote in another reply here.

From Real Old One, > Quote > (“”None of that is NATURAL Real Old One” Wrong. The warming since 1997 has been natural, due to the 2015-2016 El Nino.”).

There is another lie you’d better go back and fix with a delete Old One.

RealOldOne2
January 11, 2018 at 9:37 AM

Once again you demonstrate your inability to understand language and science, which causes you to delusionally think that I said something that I didn’t say. Sad.

I have repeatedly said that El Ninos transfer heat from the ocean to the atmosphere. That means that El Ninos cool the ocean in the area where the heat is released from. I have never said that El Ninos warm the water. And your quote of my words do NOT say that El Ninos warm the water. It’s so sad that you are too dim to realize that. My statement of warming since 1997 has been natural refers to the atmosphere, as I have often included a temperature graph of the atmosphere along with that comment. It’s a shame that you are so dishonest that you have to twist and misrepresent what I have said so you can lie and say that I have lied. You are demonstrating that you are dishonest to the core. Sad.

“You yak away so much you don’t know what you are saying from one minute to the next and you are a pathologiccal liar”
Perfect projection there, as that’s exactly what YOU are doing and who YOU are.

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 7:43 PM

It’s always a pleasure to read your stuff.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 8:15 PM

LOL

You think that still water can form plateaus, and he doesn’t know what the word emit means.

The two of you make a cute, but stupid, couple.

CB
January 8, 2018 at 3:05 PM

“The data from NOAA, NASA, UK Hadley, and others show a fairly steady uptrend in temperatures since the 1970s.”

True! Pro-tip, though: You can link to the actual image and it should maintain the source. That’s how you can prove it’s reliable and not something you just threw together in Photoshop and slapped a NASA logo on…

The earth is still emerging from the LIA (little ice age), so some warming is expected. CO2 levels rise after warming, so it’s difficult to tell which is the cause and which the effect.

CO2 ‘back-radiation’ is a myth…. for 2 reasons: 1) almost all energy absorbed by CO2 is thermalized (passed on via collisions with nearby [99.9% non-radiating non-GHG] molecules causing vibration [heat]); and 2) The putative back radiation of ~330W/M2 all seems to be unidirectional (down), when molecules should be radiating up an equal amount — impossible and stupid.

Of course the atmosphere at the surface is 288K or so, but CO2 back-radiation doesn’t cause it. And of course as the air cools with altitude in the troposphere,CO2 molecules at altitude would be cooler than the surface, wouldn’t they?.

James Owens
January 9, 2018 at 12:55 PM

David, the so-called Little Ice Age ended almost 3 centuries ago. The current warming of the surface, the troposphere, and the oceans – along with the melting of ice bodies and the rise in sea level from thermal expansion – are AGW driven.

David, here’s the temperature proxy curve (the red, orange, yellow depending on certainty) and the HadCrut4 temp record since 1850 in blue dots from Lockwood et al Astronomy & Geophysics v58 p2.17-2.23 2017.
he anomaly low in 1600-1700 is about -0.6° C, from 1725 to 1900, with the exception of the Dalton minimum and Tamobra eruption, about-0.35° C. So a rise of say 0.3° C at best.
Then since 1900, we are up that full 1° C. So it’s AGW, Davidhttps://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a43258f00311e943d69c91c7247d520724e5f2521cbae70ecb108b80eda47a17.png

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 5:02 PM

You are correct. I must have misremembered. It’s not a material matter to my position anyway, but thanks for the polite correction.

James Owens
January 9, 2018 at 6:15 PM

And my appreciation for your civility, David.
Have a good evening.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 1:06 PM

The putative back radiation of ~330W/M2 all seems to be unidirectional (down)

No you ignorant idiot, it’s not all down. The molecules DO radiate in all directions you moron. In each layer, the amount of radiation emitted increases with temperature. Hence, where the temperature is highest there is more radiation both up and down.

Take for example 10m above the ground. The downwelling radiation at this location comes from the atmosphere at 10m altitude and above. The upwelling radiation comes from the surface and the atmosphere 10m and below. THERE IS NO REASON THAT THESE TWO NUMBERS SHOULD BE THE SAME.

FFS you are stupid.

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 2:00 PM

None of this is relevant, even if it were true. The matter under consideration is why would the near earth air be 288K in the first place, since CO2 only radiates 1 photon for every 999,999,999,999 it absorbs. Moreover wherever a CO2 molecule is in the atmosphere that 1 photon will “go up” half the time and “go down” half the time.

Climate science is pseudo science, but they do teach it at Krispy-Kreme U.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 2:04 PM

It’s entirely relevant to your continued idiotic claims that the amount of upwelling radiation should be equal to the amount of downwelling radiation. Your thinking along those lines is colossally stupid.

CO2 radiates according to its temperature you ignorant imbecile. Hence, a CO2 molecule emits due to a collision with another air molecule far far more frequently than it emits due to absorbing a photon. Again, your thinking otherwise is colossally stupid.

You’re an idiot that can’t wrap his head around basic scientific concepts.

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 2:15 PM

Everything radiates according to its temperature. I recall saying this myself. But CO2 doesn’t amplify the 60W/M2 surface IR from insolation plus the 17 W/M2 from surface conduction heat loss [probably not plus the 75W/M2 of incoming insolation warming because almost all of that is from ozone in the stratosphere which cannot get back and warm the surface].

halush
January 9, 2018 at 2:17 PM

Yes, everything does radiate according to its temperature, so why do you continue to make the irrelevant statement about photon recycling?

There is ~390 W/m^2 of surface LWR.

Get your facts straight you idiot.

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 2:27 PM

Professor Blimpy from Krispy-Kreme University is quite the angry elf, isn’t he?

Who said there’s 390W/m2 of surface IR? Well, it was……. me! And 390 is equal to the 60 coming from the surface and the 330 coming back from the air. Where does the air get the 330? (and don’t say “from its temp” because then the question becomes “Where does the air get its temp from?”). It’s all circular pseudo-science.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 2:28 PM

And 390 is equal to the 60 coming from the surface

No you idiot. 390 is 390 COMING FROM THE SURFACE.

Where does the shell get its 255K temperature in the sphere-shell model David?

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 2:33 PM

390 = 60 + 330. I don’t think that’s too far advanced for either of us. And the 330 is just a result of the air’s temperature, which itself is unexplained (better: all explanations are circular — the air is 330 because of the 390 from the surface ….. or the surface is 390 because of the 330 from the air). Total tripe.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 2:37 PM

The surface radiates 390 due to its temperature of ~288K you idiot.

The downwelling radiation from the atmosphere is due to the TEMPERATURE of the atmosphere you idiot.

The surface and the atmosphere are an interacting system. Their temperatures are interdependent. Perhaps if you understood sphere-shell models then you would get it.

You’re an idiot.

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 2:46 PM

You are dismissed. Class over. Report to the teacher lounge.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 2:46 PM

Run along idiot. That’s what you do best.

Roald J. Larsen
January 9, 2018 at 2:38 PM

What are you discussing? What are the numbers?

If it’s temperature, – The daily average infrared radiation from the entire planet is 240 W/m2.

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 2:45 PM

390W/M2 is the surface radiation. 330W/m2 is the putative back radiation from the sky.

60W/M2 is what’s left of the ~164 surface insolation after subtracting latent heat and conduction (i.e., it’s the surface IR without back-radiation amplification), 17W/M2 is conductive surface heat loss.

The shell “thermalizes” all of the photons that it absorbs, as does the sphere.

Where does the temperature of the shell come from?
Where does the radiation that the shell emits comes from?
Where does the radiation that the sphere emits come from?

Roald J. Larsen
January 9, 2018 at 2:49 PM

“Back-radiation”??

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 2:52 PM

Yes, “back radiation”, the climate alarmist religion’s denial of the 2nd Law when they claim that it is a real thermal energy flow from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth.

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 2:53 PM

Back radiation is what it’s called. If you’ve been following my posts hereon, you’ll note that I debunk this. For sure the air has a temperature and for sure it radiates in proportion to that temperature. But CO2 (or GHGs generally) don’t amplify the temperature in any way. Why the sky is radiating 330W/M2 (ie., is whatever temperature that implies) is a mystery in climate science lore.

My position is that it’s due to gravity and convection….. the adiabatic lapse rate looked at upside down (temps go up as altitude goes down in the troposphere).

Why the sky is radiating 330W/M2 (ie., is whatever temperature that implies) is a mystery in climate science lore.

It’s only a mystery to idiots like you, Roald, and RealOldOne2.

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 3:00 PM

Tell us, are you a legend in your own mind too?

halush
January 9, 2018 at 3:01 PM

I’m not a scientifically incompetent moron like you and David Russell.

Does that make me a legend?

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 3:03 PM

Me? I make no pretense to knowing how the climate operates and CO2’s role in it. You? You are nothing more than a blowhard trying to come across as someone who understands something you clearly don’t. Can you grasp that? LOL

halush
January 9, 2018 at 3:03 PM

If you don’t understand it, then how do you know that I don’t?

Go learn some logical reasoning skills and get back to me moron.

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 3:04 PM

Go look in the mirror, fool. I can spot a fraud a mile away and you fit the bill. LOL

halush
January 9, 2018 at 3:05 PM

You’re suffering from the D-K effect moron.

The technical content of this discussion is beyond your capabilities. Run along now child.

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 3:07 PM

Ah yes! You AGW kooks keep trotting out Dunning-Kruger. The only thing you are doing is projecting your shortcomings for the world to see. Time for you to grow up, little boy.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 3:08 PM

You’re the idiot that admitted to not understanding it, yet you think that I don’t either.

What technical content in my posts is wrong idiot?

Gets popcorn…

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 3:09 PM

Just about everything you wrote. Choke on your popcorn. LMAO
You don’t know the difference between radiation, heat and temperature.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 3:10 PM

LOL

Nice cop out. What comment indicates that I “don’t know the difference between radiation, heat and temperature”.

… needs more butter …

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 3:12 PM

No cop out. You’re another fraud trolling here trying to impress people with what you ‘think’ you know. You have been fun, little insecure boy.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 3:13 PM

LOL

So you have nothing, just like the space between your ears.

You’re an idiot.

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 3:14 PM

Trying to be witty, little boy? LMAO

halush
January 9, 2018 at 3:15 PM

Just stating the facts.

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 3:16 PM

You have no “facts”. You are a fraud and everyone can see it. So give us some more “idiots” and “morons” because that is all you know. Why are you here? You aren’t a scientist and you will get no converts here, little boy.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 3:17 PM

Quick, if someone stated this:

“Although when I say two things at the same temperature, which means you have balance, it doesn’t mean they have the same energy in them. It just means it’s just as easy to pick energy off of one as to pick it off the other, so as you put them next to each other, nothing apparently happens. They pass energy back and forth equally. The net result is nothing.”

would you understand what they meant?

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 3:18 PM

Whether or not I understand that is irrelevant. YOU are still a fraud, little boy.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 3:19 PM

Your baseless claims are irrelevant. Is that all you have moron?

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 3:20 PM

“Moron”? Is that the best you have, fraud? My “baseless claims” have more grounding in reality than your false theory of AGW. How about that?

The shell “thermalizes” all of the photons that it absorbs, as does the sphere.

Where does the temperature of the shell come from?
Where does the radiation that the shell emits come from?
Where does the radiation that the sphere emits come from?

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 3:22 PM

YES! Yours is a “shell” game. Mixing and matching temperature, heat, and radiation as if they are all one and the same. Pssst…..they are’t, you know?

halush
January 9, 2018 at 3:23 PM

Which of the numbers don’t you understand moron?

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 3:24 PM

hahahahahaha……you are a hoot! Insecure, little boy.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 3:25 PM

Bwahahahahahaha

It was far too easy to back you into that corner and prove that you’re an idiot.

Thanks for playing moron.

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 3:33 PM

Like I said, you must think you are a legend in your own mind. It is hard to feel sorry for self-absorbed fools like you.. You really haven’t a clue and maybe you might realize that one day.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 3:36 PM

And like I said, you’re an idiot that is unable to comprehend the technical content that I am discussing. Hence, your opinions on my expertise are entirely uninformed and irrelevant.

I see that you and Roald are in agreement that Feynman is wrong about his description of thermal equilibrium.

Thanks for proving that you are a scientifically incompetent imbecile.

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 3:41 PM

Your “technical content” is nothing more than smoke and mirrors trying to show that CO2 is doing something you can’t show as true. I never offered an opinion on Feynman’s description. Why? It has NOTHING to do with what CO2 does or doesn’t do in changing the climate. Yours is a ‘shell’ game that is nothing more than BS and it frustrates you, little man, that you get seen through. Thus all your ‘idiot’ and ‘moron’ insults.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 3:42 PM

You don’t understand the technical content moron.

Try some math. It is the language of science.

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 3:44 PM

I understand you are a fraud and that is all that needs to be known.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 3:45 PM

You don’t understand any of the technical content that I have posted.

Learn some logic you colossal moron.

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 3:48 PM

Now it’s “colossal” WOW! I must be moving up in the world. You are an insecure little boy. You are getting schooled up thread by RealOldOne2. LMAO

halush
January 9, 2018 at 3:49 PM

LOL

You mean by the guy that doesn’t know what the word “emit” means?

Here, why don’t you help him out. If an object EMITS 480 W/m^2 worth of photons, does that energy still reside within the object or not?

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 3:54 PM

Reply to him. He’s schooling you.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 3:56 PM

Aww, still cowering in that corner?

I am replying to him moron. He doesn’t know what the word emit means. Why don’t you help him out?

If an object EMITS 480 W/m^2 worth of photons, does that energy still reside within the object or not?

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 3:59 PM

He’s schooling you and you don’t even realize it. Too self-absorbed, I guess? LOL

halush
January 9, 2018 at 4:00 PM

How would you know given that you are a scientifically incompetent moron?

Is this concept too hard for you to deal with?

If an object EMITS 480 W/m^2 worth of photons, does that energy still reside within the object or not?

Roald J. Larsen
January 9, 2018 at 5:13 PM

So now it is “thermal equilibrium”?

That wasn’t the term you used originally (revealing you don’t have a clue).

Beside, the rest of your original post is still wrong (your lame attempt to use Feynman as a fallacy, appeal to authority, is so embarrassing shallow and stupid, frankly i am lost for words)!

halush
January 9, 2018 at 6:25 PM

WTF are you talking about Roald?

Feynman’s statement is what it is. Two “things” at the same temperature are in thermal equilibrium you idiot.

Beside, the rest of your original post is still wrong

Yes, we know that you think Feynman is wrong. Appeals to authority, when the authority is a NOBEL PRIZE WINNING EXPERT IN THE FIELD, is not a logical fallacy you imbecile.

What are the options here? The Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman, or you, an idiot that doesn’t understand basic heat transfer?

I think I’ll go with Feynman.

Roald J. Larsen
January 9, 2018 at 6:47 PM

Suggestion .. Find the quote by Feynman, read it, understand it, compare it to your original post and come back to me (remember to include link as in DOCUMENTATION and don’t edit your original post to fit what Feynman actually said).

I bet you won’t be able to find it simply because Feynman never said what you said. However, you think he said that and you were repeating what you understood ..

Evidently you do not understand science, that is not me saying that, that is evident by your own posts.

Back to school!!

halush
January 9, 2018 at 6:49 PM

My original post is Feynman’s quote you ignorant moron. Feynman said exactly what is written in the quote.

You are claiming Feynman is wrong. Own it. You’re an idiot that doesn’t understand the first thing about physics.

Roald J. Larsen
January 9, 2018 at 6:55 PM

Propaganda is most unfair to low level IQ people, they are most vulnerable ..

halush
January 9, 2018 at 6:56 PM

So now Feynman is a propagandist?

FFS, own your ignorance Roald.

Do you honestly not think that Feynman stated those very words?

Get a clue you moron.

Roald J. Larsen
January 9, 2018 at 7:01 PM

Well, he might have said that as an infant, learning to speak ..

It’s amusing that your IQ is so low you don’t even grasp how silly you are.

Thanks for the laughs :)))

halush
January 9, 2018 at 7:05 PM

No Roald, he said it as an adult. As an expert in physics. Something that you are not.

Your denial of reality is amusing. My IQ is likely double yours.

You’re an idiot.

RealOldOne2
January 10, 2018 at 10:07 AM

Yes, he’s an insecure little boy.
Halush has given himself away that he is an evenminded sockpuppet by his incessant “You’re an idiot” & “You’re a moron” & “You’re an imbecile” comments when anyone posts science that proves him wrong and he can’t refute it.
He goes on FULL TILT. Quite pathetic.

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 3:37 PM

“Where does the temperature of the shell come from?”
From the increase in its internal energy as a result of the steady-state transfer of 240W/m² of thermal energy from the 303K object to the 255K shell (at the final equilibrium condition that you describe). Simple S-B: q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴) Plug in the numbers and verify (if you can do math).

“Where does the radiation the the shell emits comes from?”
From the internal energy it possesses, that it got from the 303K object transferring 240W/m to it (at the final equilibrium condition that you are describing).

“Where does the radiation that the sphere emits come from?”
From it’s internal energy source of 240W/m².

It appears that you are borrowing my simple heat transfer example that shows that a radiative heat exchange between two radiating objects is unidirectional. My example shows that a false claim of bidirectional energy transfer violates the 2nd Law, because bidirectional energy transfer has an always hotter object increasing its internal energy and temperature further solely as a result of a transfer of heat from an always colder object.

Yes the sphere emits 480 W/m², but it only transfers 240W/m² of thermal energy to the shell because there is 240W/m² of opposing radiative pressure/force opposing the energy transfer away from the object.

Apparently you haven’t gotten to the math level where you can solve the S-B equation that determines the transfer of energy between two radiating objects: q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴)

halush
January 9, 2018 at 3:47 PM

Yes the sphere emits 480 W/m²

Very good moron. Now, just after the sphere EMITS those photons, is that energy still within the sphere or not?

I know it’s a tricky one, but I think you can do it.

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 3:53 PM

It’s a simple thermodynamics and heat transfer problem. No need to obfuscate by discussing photons:

“The first thing that needs to be recognised by all is that the one field of study that specifically addresses and handles everything concerning energy transfers between different regions or systems and the temperature changes (if any) that result from them, is … that branch of physics called ‘Thermodynamics’.
Any argument trying to introduce for instance quantum theory concepts like ‘photons’ into the mix, or laws and relationships pertaining to ‘specific emitters’ and ‘blackbody radiation’, can safely be dismissed as irrelevant to the issue at hand. It only confuses the matter. Which would be the purpose for bringing them in to begin with.” – https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-1/

halush
January 9, 2018 at 3:55 PM

Photons are the carrier of EM energy moron. Why do you shy away from discussing them?

Now, just after the sphere EMITS those photons, is that energy still within the sphere or not?

I know it’s a tricky one, but I thought you could do it. I guess you are just too stupid to understand the fundamental microscopic description of radiative heat transfer.

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 4:27 PM

Still obfuscating with your photon mental model.
So sad that you deny the S-B equation that determines energy transfer between two radiating objects: q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴) .

“the fundamental microscopic description of heat transfer”
The microscopic heat transfer must obey the macroscopic laws of thermodynamics. You are merely obfuscating.

Here’s my simple heat transfer example that proves you wrong:Givens:
– We have an object with a surface area of 1m².
– The object is in a vacuum with the surroundings being space with a temperature of 0K.
– the object and the radiation shield are blackbodies so ϵ=1.
– The S-B constant, σ=5.67×10⁻⁸.
– Temps rounded to whole numbers.
– The shield is very very close to but not touching the object so the surface areas are essentially equal considering the 3 significant figures of thermal energy transfer we are considering, 1m².
– The only Energy-in to our system is an internal heat/energy source of 240W/m² within the object.
– The object is initially radiating to 0K outer space.
– The only heat transfer mechanism is radiative heat transfer, so there is no conductive, convective or latent heat of vaporization.

So with those givens, at initial thermal equilibrium the Energy-out must equal the Energy-in = 240W/m². The S-B equation, q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴) , thus tells us that the initial temperature of the object is 255K(-18C). There is no external Energy-in to the object because the temperature of space surrounding it is absolute zero.

So the ONLY energy source to the object that exists in our system is 240W/m², PERIOD. Since one watt is defined as 1 Joule/sec, that means that the only energy source and the only energy being transferred through any point in our system is 240Joules/sec.

At initial thermal equilibrium the 240Joules/sec of energy which is internally generated is transferred away from the surface of the object to the 0K surroundings.

We now surround the object with a radiation shield which has an initial temperature of 0K, so no new energy is added to our system. The purpose of a radiation shield is to reduce heat loss from an object.

The shield initially receives the 240W/m²(240 Joules/sec) of energy/heat which is being transferred away from the object so the internal energy of the shield begins to increase which causes the temperature of the shield to increase. As the shield temperature increases, the heat transfer from the object is reduced, since the cold temperature (Tc) in the S-B equation is no longer zero. The reduction of heat transferred away from the object means that less than 240W/m² of energy is being transferred away which causes an accumulation of internal energy within the object. This accumulation of internal energy causes an increase in temperature of the object.

The shield temperature and object temperature continue to increase until a new thermal equilibrium is reached. The temperature of the shield will then be 255K(-18C).

At the new thermal equilibrium, the Energy-out from the object to the shield must equal the Energy-out from the shield to space which must equal the 240W/m²(240 Joules/sec) of internally generated energy/heat.

The new equilibrium temperature of the object as calculated by the S-B equation is 303K(30C).
q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴) => 240=(1)(5.67×10⁻⁸)(Th⁴-255⁴) ==>
Th⁴=(240/5.67×10⁻⁸)+255⁴ ==> Th=303K

That is my correct description of what happens from the thermodynamic/heat transfer perspective. In my correct understanding:
1) The increase in temperature from 255K to 303K is solely
due to the accumulation of internal energy from the internal heat source of 240W/m²(240 Joules/sec), which is the only energy source existing in our system.

2) The internal heat source remains Energy-in of 240W/m²(240 Joules/sec) , the heat/energy transferred away from the surface (to the shield) remains 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec) and the heat/energy transferred away from the shield to space is 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec).

3) Before, during and after the process of adding the shield and reaching the new equilibrium temperature, energy flow is always and only UNI-directional flowing away from the higher temperature/energy object(s) to the lower temperature/energy surroundings/shield and never flowing from the the colder surroundings/shield to the warmer objects. This satisfies the 2nd Law, just as the Thermodynamics textbook says:

“the second law involves the fact that
processes proceed in a certain direction but NOT in the opposite direction .

A hot cup of coffee cools by virtue of heat transfer to the surroundings, but heat will not flow from the cooler surroundings to the hotter cup of coffee.” – Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, VanWylen and Sonntag, Chap.6 ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics’, p.155.

4) Before, during and after the process of adding the blanket, energy is neither created nor destroyed. It is conserved, satisfying the 1st Law.

“These shields do not deliver or remove any heat from the overall system; they only place another resistance in the heat-flow path so that the overall heat transfer is retarded.” – J.P.Holman, ‘Heat Transfer’, McGraw Hill, 2nd ed., textbook

Now your wrong understanding of bidirectional heat/thermal energy transfer is that at the new thermal equilibrium, the temperature increase of the always warmer object is solely due to a new energy/heat flow of 240W/m² (Joules/sec) being transferred from the always colder shield to the always warmer object. So your wrong understanding at final equilibrium now has two Energy-ins to the object, the original 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec) from the internal heat source PLUS a new Energy-in of 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec) being transferred from the colder radiation shield.

Your wrong understanding has created 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec) of energy out of thin air.

Your wrong view has 480W/m² (480 Joules/sec) of energy transferring away from the 303K object, which is twice as much energy/heat as existed in our system, and twice as much energy/heat as is coming from the only energy/heat source of our system.

Your wrong view is not consistent with a radiation shield, whose purpose is to reduce heat transfer from an object, because your wrong view has the heat transfer from the object actually increasing.

Your wrong view created a new energy-in source to the object of 240W/m² out of thin air. Thus your wrong understanding violates the 1st Law, because it wrongly has the object receiving 480W/m^2 of energy where the only energy source is 240W/m^2, so conservation of energy, the 1st Law has been violated.

And your wrong understanding violates the 2nd Law because it has the cause of the increase in temperature of the always warmer object coming from the transfer of heat from an always colder object (shield) to an always warmer object.

QED, My understanding is correct and the wrong understanding of bidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer is wrong.

Refute that if you can. No one has been able to, and it proves your claim of bidirectional thermal energy transfer violates the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 4:31 PM

OK. You don’t understand what photons are. Perhaps you should go take a class and educate yourself.

You’re an idiot. Learn what the word “emit” means.

ROO2
January 9, 2018 at 5:25 PM

Yay! The black body perfect radiator of energy that does not radiate energy according to its temperature!

You’ve been pulled up on this re-writing of physics enough times already.

Want to tell everyone about you mirror that reflects no light too?

Pwahahahahahaha.

When you have been busted so many times for telling lies, what is in it for you to continue? So sad.

Roald J. Larsen
January 9, 2018 at 3:23 PM

That is wrong!

Energy (heat) only flow in one direction, towards cold. Your “balance” would be thermal equilibrium, right!??

I.e no energy would be flowing ..

But both would lose energy to the surroundings etc.

Back to school!

halush
January 9, 2018 at 3:24 PM

Wrong?

Too bad Professor Feynman isn’t alive for you to explain to him why he is wrong. I’m sure he’d be interested in your insights.

Bwahahahahahaha

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 3:36 PM

yeah, because Feynman would say the crap you are pushing is cargo science.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 3:37 PM

That’s a direct quote from Feynman you idiot.

Nice own goal.

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 3:42 PM

You don’t even comprehend my reply. How am I not surprised.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 3:43 PM

You’re the idiot that upvoted a comment claiming Feynman was wrong about thermal equilibrium. You’re also the idiot that claimed this description is irrelevant to the issues being discussed on this thread.

You’re a moron.

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 3:45 PM

Whatever you say, little man. LMAO

halush
January 9, 2018 at 3:48 PM

It’s been fun backing you into that corner.

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 3:51 PM

Think so? You can think what you like, little boy, but I’m in no corner. I am having fun playing with you and showing the world how insecure you really must be. All you can do is throw insults. That is the extent of your intellect. Shallow.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 3:52 PM

Given that you avoid any and all questions posed to you, it’s crystal clear that you are in a corner.

ROO2 continues to violate the terms of service by his impersonation of me, using the my same username. This is the 8th time he has done it on this article. It shows that he is begging to be blocked. He has previously made vulgar, defamatory comments using my username impersonation account.
Please block ROO2 and his impersonation account for violating the terms of service for impersonation. You can see from his comment history that he has done this 105 times. ROO2 finds where I am am commenting and then impersonates me with his FAKE RealOldOne2 account.

His behavior shows that he is so deranged and unhinged, he may carry out his threats. Please block this ROO2 troll, and his associated accounts such as the above FAKE RealOldOne2 account. His behavior shows that he is just wanting to troll and disrupt the discussion.

Thank you.

Grumnut1
January 9, 2018 at 3:53 PM

Why is the troposphere warming, while the stratosphere is cooling at the same time?
Why are the nights warming faster than the days?
There’s not much sun at night.

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 3:53 PM

I’m not an expert so look for your answers elsewhere.

Grumnut1
January 9, 2018 at 3:54 PM

So, why do you feel others cannot answer questions like that?

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 4:01 PM

I didn’t say that. They can if they like. I don’t care for the insults that must accompany the responses. Have a great day!

halush
January 9, 2018 at 4:02 PM

Only a moron would think that insults would change the truth of the message.

ROO2 continues to violate the terms of service by his impersonation of me, using the my same username. This is the 7th time he has done it on this article. It shows that he is begging to be blocked. He has previously made vulgar, defamatory comments using my username impersonation account.
Please block ROO2 and his impersonation account for violating the terms of service for impersonation. You can see from his comment history that he has done this 105 times. ROO2 finds where I am am commenting and then impersonates me with his FAKE RealOldOne2 account.

His behavior shows that he is so deranged and unhinged, he may carry out his threats. Please block this ROO2 troll, and his associated accounts such as the above FAKE RealOldOne2 account. His behavior shows that he is just wanting to troll and disrupt the discussion.

Thank you.

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 4:19 PM

“Why is the troposphere warming, while the stratosphere is cooling at the same time”
The troposphere and stratosphere have different composition and different physical thermal energy transfer mechanisms.

Your tying tropospheric warming to stratospheric cooling is proven to be false because their temps are not synchronized, ie., the cooling of the stratosphere and the warming of the troposphere do not ‘mirror’ each other.

The temperature of the troposphere has warmed as a result of solar energy and its signature varies with natural climate variability and natural factors like El Ninos.

“Observations reveal that the substantial cooing of the lower stratosphere over 1979 to 2003 occurred in two steplike transitions. Those arose in the aftermath of two major volcanic eruptions, each cooling transition being followed by a period of relatively stable temperatures.” – Ramaswamy(2006)

“Why are nights warming faster than the days?”
Because of the influence of UHI contamination of the temperature record.

The hottest temperature ever recorded at an official measurement station occurred in in 1913 . 95% of all the human CO2 ever produced, 1.5 trillion tons worth, has been added to the atmosphere since 1913, and it hasn’t caused a higher temperature to be recorded at any temperature measuring station on the face of the planet.

So why hasn’t all that CO2 been able to cause a single higher recorded temperature anywhere on the face of the earth? Because it has MAGIC properties that only work at night?

Answer: Because CO2 is an insignificant factor in causing climate warming.

Grumnut1
January 9, 2018 at 5:47 PM

So you’re saying climatologists can ACCOUNT for volcanic activity.
You would be right.
Even the models do remarkably well when you add in a volcano. or two.
“Large eruptions can also slow other aspects of climate change. Research published last year shows that the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines cooled the oceans enough to momentarily depress sea level rise rates.

But all of these impacts depend on sulphur dioxide reaching the stratosphere. While satellites have shown sulphur dioxide in Agung’s ash cloud, the cloud is only about halfway to the stratosphere at this point. That means its climate impact is negligible so far. But if the ash cloud rises higher and becomes more potent, its climate impacts would be felt fairly quickly.

“Global surface temperature reacts pretty fast to a big volcanic eruption,” Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at the University of California, Berkeley and analyst for Carbon Brief, told Earther. “While it would take a few months for the aerosol cloud to spread around the Earth, we’d see maximum cooling set in over a few months after the eruption and slowly fade away over the next five or so years.”
So, they know all about them and their effects.
I never said one had to mirror the other.
So, why is the troposphere warming while the stratosphere is cooling, when as you’ve just pointed out, it’s got nothing to do with volcanoes?
“..it hasn’t caused a higher temperature to be recorded at any temperature measuring station on the face of the planet.”
And I asked.
Was that at night?
I don’t think you get the point.

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 5:53 PM

What a pathetic handwaving clown dance of obfuscation.

Grumnut1
January 9, 2018 at 6:00 PM

No, no. I said you were correct.

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 6:09 PM

“I said you were correct.”
Thanks for admitting that your warming troposphere/cooling stratosphere argument was false and is not evidence of AGW.

Grumnut1
January 9, 2018 at 6:12 PM

No worries.
Now answer everything else.

ROO2
January 9, 2018 at 6:48 PM

The temperature of the stratosphere has cooled in steps

No it hasn’t. You’ve picked the TLS dataset which straddles the tropopause and includes large part of both the troposphere and stratosphere.

You are caught yet again cherrypicking and misrepresenting actual data to support your meme.

People are quite capable of choosing stratospheric channels from the RSS data to see the actual trends in stratosphere temperatures by using the drop down menu in the top left of the RSS website:

ROO2 continues to violate the terms of service by his impersonation of me, using the my same username. This is the 6th time he has done it on this article. It shows that he is begging to be blocked. He has previously made vulgar, defamatory comments using my username impersonation account.
Please block ROO2 and his impersonation account for violating the terms of service for impersonation. You can see from his comment history that he has done this 105 times. ROO2 finds where I am am commenting and then impersonates me with his FAKE RealOldOne2 account.

His behavior shows that he is so deranged and unhinged, he may carry out his threats. Please block this ROO2 troll, and his associated accounts such as the above FAKE RealOldOne2 account. His behavior shows that he is just wanting to troll and disrupt the discussion.

Thank you.

James Owens
January 11, 2018 at 9:26 AM

The C11 selection peaks at about 25 km and the C12 selection peaks at about 30 km.
The selection menu in the upper left http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
Both have negative slopes (cooling) – 0.36 and 0.47 degrees per decade, respectively, is pretty substantial – but like all climate data we need long-term, multi-decadal trends
There are some modest rises and troughs as one would expect.
So to wind up, clearly not “steps”

Roald J. Larsen
January 9, 2018 at 4:36 PM

The answer is still the UHI effect and FAKE data, next time you ask that question, guess what, it’s still the UHI effect and FAKE data.

Grumnut1
January 9, 2018 at 5:49 PM

Then you’d better learn a new answer.

Grumnut1
January 9, 2018 at 3:51 PM

You LOL pretty well.
I wish I could LOL like that!

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 3:53 PM

Keep trying, you will. LOL

Grumnut1
January 9, 2018 at 3:53 PM

No. I just can’t get it.

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 4:02 PM

You will. It isn’t hard and it’s fun. LOL

Grumnut1
January 9, 2018 at 4:15 PM

LUL?

Roald J. Larsen
January 9, 2018 at 4:38 PM

You’re an alarmist, there can only be two alternatives. Either you don’t understand the science, or .. drum beat .. You are dishonest!

halush
January 9, 2018 at 4:41 PM

I DO understand the science Roald, which is why I KNOW that YOU do not understand the science.

You’re the moron that stated that Feynman was wrong. You’re the moron that thinks that air molecules interacting with photons know what temperature they are at.

You’re a fool.

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 7:03 PM

I make no pretense to knowing how the climate operates and CO2’s role in it. You?

ROO2 continues to violate the terms of service by his impersonation of me, using the my same username. This is the 5th time he has done it on this article. It shows that he is begging to be blocked. He has previously made vulgar, defamatory comments using my username impersonation account.
Please block ROO2 and his impersonation account for violating the terms of service for impersonation. You can see from his comment history that he has done this 105 times. ROO2 finds where I am am commenting and then impersonates me with his FAKE RealOldOne2 account.

His behavior shows that he is so deranged and unhinged, he may carry out his threats. Please block this ROO2 troll, and his associated accounts such as the above FAKE RealOldOne2 account. His behavior shows that he is just wanting to troll and disrupt the discussion.

Thank you.

Grumnut1
January 9, 2018 at 3:50 PM

It’s strange climate scientists have never looked into it.

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 10:54 PM

No one agrees with you. Your position is circular.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 10:55 PM

It’s not circular moron.

Answer the shell questions posed to you you pig-ignorant idiot.

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 11:10 PM

The shell/sphere question is irrelevant to the matter under discussion. Anyway, Real Old One answered it.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 11:12 PM

RealOldOne2 doesn’t understand what emit means and you don’t understand that the problem solution is not circular.

You and RealOldOne2 are idiots.

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 11:26 PM

Uh huh. Go to bed and don’t forget to brush your teeth.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 11:28 PM

If an object emits a photon, has the object lost an amount of energy equivalent to the energy of that photon?

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 11:39 PM

It depends on where the photon goes. If the photon leaves the object, yes. If it is absorbs or otherwise transfers the absorbed energy to some other part of the object (as is the case with the atmosphere), no.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 11:42 PM

If the photon leaves the object, yes.

VERY GOOD DAVID. THAT IS WHAT “EMIT” MEANS. IF AN OBJECT “EMITS” A PHOTON THEN THAT MEANS THE PHOTON HAS LEFT THE OBJECT.

FFS, it’s like pulling teeth with you morons.

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 11:48 PM

Why ask stupid questions then? I know. You can’t help yourself.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 11:50 PM

RealOldOne2 DISAGREES with you. He doesn’t understand what “emit” means you idiot.

RealOldOne2
January 10, 2018 at 12:21 AM

“He doesn’t understand what “emit” means you idiot”
You are just as good at projection on the “idiot” thing as your fellow climate cult zealots!

As David CORRECTLY answered, a photon that is emitted from an object has taken energy OUT of that object.

FFS you are stupid. Go learn what a photon is.

RealOldOne2
January 10, 2018 at 8:04 AM

“moron … FFS you are stupid”
Tiltminded, you sure are good at projection.
But sadly you’re a pathetic denier of thermodynamics and heat transfer.

halush
January 10, 2018 at 8:09 AM

You’re the idiot that doesn’t understand what the word emit means. Every one of your boyfriends that answers the question directly refutes your ignorance.

You probably think this is describing a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. It’s not you imbecile.

“Although when I say two things at the same temperature, which means you have balance, it doesn’t mean they have the same energy in them. It just means it’s just as easy to pick energy off of one as to pick it off the other, so as you put them next to each other, nothing apparently happens. They pass energy back and forth equally. The net result is nothing.”

RealOldOne2
January 10, 2018 at 8:59 AM

“You’re the idiot that doesn’t understand what the word emit means”
Nice projection on the “idiot” thing!
I can back up what I say with real science.

All objects above 0K emit EM waves. And when those EM waves are opposed by other EM waves, they interact, interfere, superimpose to create a single EM wave which represents the energy transferred between the two objects. When both objects are at the same temperature, NO energy transfer occurs. That’s science.

No temperature difference, no energy transfer, period. That is confirmed by real world observations and measurements. There has never been any measured thermal energy transfer between two objects which are at the same temperature. That would be a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind, which would violate the entropy principle, which cannot exist in the real world we live in. Only in the la-la fantasy land of your CAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion pseudoscience.

“If you have a source emitting an EM wave through a certain space and another source emitting another EM wave through the same space at the same frequency, but in the opposite direction, you get a standing wave. A standing wave does not travel or carry energy, so its average Poynting vector is zero. You can think of it as the Poynting vector of the one wave canceling the other.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cancellation-of-poynting-vector-components.507450/

With two exactly equal temperature objects, the radiation force/pressure is exactly equal but opposing, so there is no transfer of energy. It’s just like if you have a linear force pushing on a block on a frictionless surface the block will move in the direction of the applied force. (analogous to a single EM wave) The instant you apply an equal but opposite force, all motion ceases because you now have an equal but opposite force (analogous to the single resultant EM standing wave).

These two water tanks show the IIT pressure difference/fluid flow example : http://www.noshockzone.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Water-Tanks-No-Flow-300×247.jpg When the water levels/pressures are equal, there is no water flow in the pipe connecting the two tanks. Your wrong claim of bidirectional thermal energy transfer between two objects in radiative contact is the same as claiming that there is continuous bidirectional water flow in the pipe connecting two water tanks with exactly the same water level, at the rate as if there was no opposing pressure in each other tank. That’s ludicrous, as is your silly claim of heat flowing back and forth as if the other object was at absolute zero, for that would violate the universal entropy principle because it would be a perpetual, perfect 100% efficient. lossless, energy transfer in which there would be no increase in energy, an IMPOSSIBILITY in the real world we live in. That impossibility only occurs in the mental models of 2nd Law denying peddlers of climate cult pseudoscience. Unfortunately for you and your fellow cultists, your claimed bidirectional perpetual energy transfer between two equal temperature objects can not and never has been experimentally demonstrated in the real world, which makes it WRONG!

“Compare it with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is, if it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG! That’s all there is to it.” – Physicist Richard Feynman, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

“Everyone of your boyfriends…”
Ah, so you are a sockpuppet of evenminded, the tiltminded troll! Got ya! No wonder your comments were so stupid!
What’s the problem, did you get blocked here in your evenminded persona?

halush
January 10, 2018 at 9:11 AM

There’s no projection moron. I know what the word “emit” means, unlike you. You’re the idiot that needs to learn English. Then you can try to learn some physics.

This:

“Although when I say two things at the same temperature, which means you have balance, it doesn’t mean they have the same energy in them. It just means it’s just as easy to pick energy off of one as to pick it off the other, so as you put them next to each other, nothing apparently happens. They pass energy back and forth equally. The net result is nothing.”

is NOT a description of a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind. You’re an imbecile.

RealOldOne2
January 10, 2018 at 9:32 AM

Evenminded is on tilt at just a few comments!

halush
January 10, 2018 at 9:39 AM

WTF are you talking about idiot?

This:

“Although when I say two things at the same temperature, which means you have balance, it doesn’t mean they have the same energy in them. It just means it’s just as easy to pick energy off of one as to pick it off the other, so as you put them next to each other, nothing apparently happens. They pass energy back and forth equally. The net result is nothing.”

is NOT a description of a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind. You’re an imbecile.

RealOldOne2
January 10, 2018 at 10:33 AM

“WTF are you talking about idiot? … You’re an imbecile”
Poor evenminded troll. All you can do is call people an “idiot”, a “moron” & an “imbecile”.

So how’s that backradiation collector coming along that collects twice as much heat as a solar collector and collects just as much heat at night as a solar collector does during the daytime? Not so good huh? Never collected any heat huh? You can’t fool the 2nd Law.

Your claim of bidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer between two radiating objects is proven wrong by my simple heat transfer example. Your bidirectional thermal energy transfer, which has never been observed or measured in the real world, violates the 2nd Law because it has an always hotter object increasing its internal energy and temperature solely due to the transfer of heat from an always colder object. Such is your pseudoscience. Pathetic.
Search for “givens:” to find my heat transfer example. Neither you nor anyone else has ever shown it to be wrong.

halush
January 10, 2018 at 10:39 AM

Seriously, WTF are you talking about? “Bi-directional” energy transfer is a simple consequence of the microscopic mechanisms of energy exchange between objects.

This:

“Although when I say two things at the same temperature, which means you have balance, it doesn’t mean they have the same energy in them. It just means it’s just as easy to pick energy off of one as topick it off the other, so as you put them next to each other, nothing apparently happens. They pass energy back and forth equally. The net result is nothing.”

Go ahead, call me an “idiot”, a “moron”, an “imbecile” if it will make you feel better.

halush
January 10, 2018 at 11:08 AM

WTF is a “backradiation heat collector” you idiot, and what does it have to do with your inability to understand the microscopic mechanisms of energy transfer?

This:

“Although when I say two things at the same temperature, which means you have balance, it doesn’t mean they have the same energy in them. It just means it’s just as easy to pick energy off of one as to pick it off the other, so as you put them next to each other, nothing
apparently happens. They pass energy back and forth equally. The net
result is nothing.”

is NOT a description of a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind.

You’re an imbecile.

Roald J. Larsen
January 9, 2018 at 3:12 PM

There’s obviously a confusion here. “Back-radiation” means radiation from a cold atmosphere warming an already warmer surface when talking to an alarmist, in reality, “back-radiation” is just the result of the air temperature containing energy, moist or dry, not the cause for the temperature. Air molecules radiate IR in all directions, also down.

There’s no such thing as “green house gases”, temperature in the atmosphere is preserved as a result of gravity, mass and pressure.

Convection is warm air, dry or moist, rising in the atmosphere, transporting energy up and out of the atmosphere.

Air molecules radiate IR in all directions, also down. There’s no such thing as “green house gases”, temperature in the atmosphere is preserved as a result of gravity, mass and pressure.

I see the annual Phineas Gage convention is already well under way.

Grumnut1
January 9, 2018 at 3:48 PM

So the earth is warming because temps go up as altitude goes down in the troposphere.
I LIKE that theory.

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 5:05 PM

So do I. And the science of it is compelling too —– It doesn’t require any outside energy source to explain things. Total energy of a parcel of air = total [gravitational] potential energy + total kinetic [heat] energy. Falling air converts its potential energy into kinetic energy without changing total energy and vice versa.

Grumnut1
January 9, 2018 at 5:49 PM

” It doesn’t require any outside energy source to explain things.”
I think you’ve found the flaw in your own argument.

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 5:59 PM

The flaw is between your ears. Adiabatic means “not outside energy.”

Grumnut1
January 9, 2018 at 7:16 PM

No. It’s an idealisation of no energy transfer.
More particularly, we’re LOOKING for an outside energy source,to explain the warming.
Getting rid of it, is your flaw.

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 7:36 PM

I’ve explained this already. There is no flaw in my explanation.

Grumnut1
January 9, 2018 at 7:44 PM

It’s ALL flaw!
And you don’t even understand someone on your side of the argument.
I’m going to have to take a screenshot.
My grandchildren would say, “It’s not possible”
But I could point to it on the wall.

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 7:56 PM

I sure don’t understand your point here. Maybe the problem is on my side, but I think not. Sorry. I’m not trying to be contentious.

Grumnut1
January 9, 2018 at 8:00 PM

You’re trying to say the earth is warming.
Without any change in input.
Where is the energy coming from, if the Sun’s energy is on the wane?

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 8:13 PM

That is not what what I’m saying. I’m saying that our base surface temp is an artifact of gravitational gradiant. Changes in that aprox. 288K are due to many factors of which CO2 is a bit player.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 8:26 PM

I’m saying that our base surface temp is an artifact of gravitational gradiant.

Sorry, I asked for something in English. Moreover this link isn’t even seem relevant to the discussion here.

Grumnut1
January 9, 2018 at 8:41 PM

So, for instance, Venus which is quite similar mass to Earth, even though it’s closer to the Sun has most of its incoming radiation blocked by extremely dense clouds is NOT 452 C.
If there was no CO2, you feel it would still be 452 C?

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 10:27 PM

I didn’t say that either. Just curious (somewhat off topic): How much solar energy reaches the surface? I can’t find the answer, but my guess would be about 10W/M2.

Grumnut1
January 10, 2018 at 2:02 AM

This is the best I can find.
“only one third of the heat energy reaches the ground. In fact less solar energy reaches the ground on Venus than on Earth”

david russell
January 10, 2018 at 8:34 AM

Thanks for your effort. What I found is that surface insolation on Venus corresponds to Earth’s on a cloudy day with 1km visibility. Then I found this on a site promoting solar power:
“….But, do solar panels work in cloudy weather? Yes… just not quite as well On a cloudy day, typical solar panels can produce 10-25% of their rated capacity. ”

To me, this suggests that Venus gets closer to 10% (much less than your 1/3) the surface insolation than Earth (remember cloudy with 1km visibility is REALLY cloudy). That means Venus gets about 16W/M2 of surface insolation to Earths 164W/M2.

Now what is the energy equivalent of 733K (the surface temp of Venus)? I just plugged this into an online Stefan-Boltzmann calculator assuming emissivity of 1, which yielded: 16,728W/M2.

My result (which I would NOT swear to in court) is that 16W/M2 of energy comes in from the sun at the surface of Venus and over 100X that (16,728W/m2 goes out.

On Venus the BB peak emission seems to be around 2-3 microns (from visual inspection) and at 300K it’s about 10 microns. CO2’s 15 micron IR absorption band is much farther away from peak on Venus than on Earth. In that respect CO2 is much weaker a GHG than on Venus.

On the other hand CO2 under pressure broadens the ‘wings’ around 15microns giving CO2 more domain. I can’t quantify how all this washes out. Perhaps someone else can.

A implies B. B implies C. Therefore A implies C. But, but, how do you calculate Q? — that’s the Halush approach to argument. No one’s falling for it.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 11:30 PM

I’m asking YOU to explain it David.

Go ahead. If, as YOU say, “It doesn’t require any outside energy source to explain things”, then how do YOU explain the temperature?

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 11:36 PM

You are just being stupid and I’m not willing to play along. The temperature is higher at the surface because of gravity acting on a heated gas. Higher air has more potential energy and less kinetic energy than lower air. Calculating the temperature here or there is something not at issue…. except for you.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 11:39 PM

No David, I am asking you to support YOUR claim.

The temperature is higher at the surface because of gravity acting on a heated gas.

No kidding @$$h0le. That there is a lapse rate is known. What you are not answering is what is the temperature of some location in the atmosphere based on the solar input.

FFS you are daft.

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 11:43 PM

My claims support themselves. I’ve made no specific claims that I can calculate the temperature of a specific place at a specific time under a variety of conditions. No one has. No one is interested in doing that.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 11:44 PM

No they don’t you idiot.

You stated that the 288K surface temperature is explained by gravity.

What is the surface temperature if there are no radiatively active gases in the atmosphere?

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 11:47 PM

That is correct. I said nothing about what the temperature would be with contrary to factual conditions.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 11:49 PM

So how do you know it is explained by gravity and not GHGs moron?

What would the surface temperature be if you maintained gravity and removed the GHGS?

Learn some logical reasoning skills you idiot.

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 11:50 PM

I’ve answered that question, and won’t repeat myself.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 11:52 PM

You haven’t answered the question today David. Go ahead.

What would the surface temperature be if you maintained gravity and removed the GHGS?

Kapricorn4
January 10, 2018 at 12:18 PM

The temperature of the surface atmosphere of Venus is 864 deg F, where the gas pressure is 90 times that of Earth.

david russell
January 10, 2018 at 1:17 PM

Lots of pressure, lots of heat. Sure.

Kapricorn4
January 11, 2018 at 12:12 AM

That is also true when we drill down into the earth – it gets hotter with depth. However, as we go deeper into the oceans there is increased pressure, but not temperature.

david russell
January 11, 2018 at 12:20 AM

Gases heat when compressed. Liquids and solid not so much (if at all). I’m not a geologist but I understand radioactivity plays a role in heating the crust. And of course there’s magma in many places. We both know that there are both volcanos and volcanic vents many places at the bottom of the oceans.

Kapricorn4
January 11, 2018 at 7:29 AM

The usual explanation for red hot magma escaping from volcanoes is radio activity in the earth’s core. I have walked on the surface of the Kilawauea volcano in the Big Island of Hawaii, where red hot glowing magma flows like a series rivers within the black rock, but the lava is not that radioactive as far as I am aware.

On my property in Westchester County, New York there are outcroppings of granite that emit small quantities of radon gas, a by-product of Uranium decay.

“Radon is a colorless, odorless gas, a radioactive byproduct of radium. It is part of the natural radioactive decay series starting with uranium-238. It is radioactive with a half-life of 3.8 days, decaying by the emission of alpha particles to polonium, bismuth, and lead in successive steps.”

The earth’s core is reputed to consist mainly of a molten iron-nickel alloy. Is there in fact enough Uranium present to cause it to be quite so hot, or are there some other factors at work, such as magnetism and electric currents?

This is pretty much my understanding except I consider magma and radioactivity to be SEPARATE reasons for crustal heat. The core is too far away from any depth we can reach today with our technology.

Kapricorn4
January 11, 2018 at 7:37 AM

As a gas is compressed it does get hotter, since the molecules are colliding in a more confined space as clearly demonstrated by observing the Brownian motion of cigarette smoke under a microscope. But hot air rises in the atmosphere and cools as it ascends due to expansion. Since air itself absorbs little infra red radiation from the sun, it must be heated by contact with the solid or liquid surface. It seems to me that claims of 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere controling the earth’s climate are absurd.

david russell
January 11, 2018 at 8:32 AM

The so-called GHG’s in the air do absorb IR. Different GHGs absorb different IR bandwidths. CO2 does its main work in the 15 micron range bandwidth. With CO2 999,999,999 times out of a billion this absorbed energy is transferred via collisions with nearby molecules as heat. GHG’s in effect capture and then REDISTRIBUTE IR energy to the rest of the atmosphere as heat. The bogus idea the CO2 captures IR and then radiates it back to the surface of the planet further warming it is a myth. CO2 only radiates captured IR 1 in a billion times and the 99.9% of the gases receiving the transferred heat from collisions are non-GHGs and don’t radiate at all.

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 11:31 PM

Can you calculate the temperature 325m above the Tropic of Cancer on October 1 at noon on a partially cloudy day where the surface is desert sand? Can’t answer? Does it matter if you could?

halush
January 9, 2018 at 11:34 PM

I’m not asking for that moron. I’m asking how YOU are coming up with 288K based on gravity and the sun’s input.

I CAN explain how to get no higher than a 255K average with the sun’s input in the ABSENCE of a radiatively active atmosphere AND the PRESENCE of GRAVITY.

You CAN’T support your claim.

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 11:46 PM

No, that’s no what you asked. You asked some general question about calculating some general temperature based solely on the sun. Nor did anyone say anything about there being no GHG’ s in the atmosphere. You’re just being pointlessly contentious.

I’m still awaiting your explanation of the surface temp in terms of GHGs…. in English.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 11:48 PM

That IS what I am asking you to do moron.

And I DID give you the link to my explanation to you from WEEKS ago you idiot.

You should see a doctor about those memory issues you are having moron.

It proves that without a radiatively active atmosphere the averaged surface temperature can be no higher than the SB temperature. Hence, gravity DOES NOT EXPLAIN why the average surface temperature is ~288K.

Learn some logic you moron.

david russell
January 10, 2018 at 9:12 AM

Uh huh. Well we have the sun providing the base energy and sufficient GHGs on every rocky planet in the solar system with an atmosphere to prime the pump so to speak. GHG’s prime the pump by facilitating expulsion of energy from the system, but don’t explain why the atmosphere is producing 2X the IR energy as is provide by 100% of surface insolation.

halush
January 10, 2018 at 9:16 AM

GHGs don’t produce energy you ignorant idiot. They act as insulation, as a resistance to radiative heat flow out of the system.

Solve a shell model David. They address your stupidity.

david russell
January 10, 2018 at 9:25 AM

Your above is not accurate. GHG’s actually facilitate energy flow out of the system — at altitude. Lower down they merely transfer absorbed energy to other [99.9% non-GHG, non-radiating] molecules. That hardly explains a material portion of 330W/M2 IR from the sky. And as only once in a billion absorptions of IR by CO2 results in a re-emission (and zero % radiation comes back from the 99.9% of non-GHGs so heated), hardly any of this ‘energy distribution’ makes it back to the surface.

halush
January 10, 2018 at 9:28 AM

No you ignorant moron, GHGs do not facilitate the loss of energy from the system.

Putting a resistance to heat flow in a system DOES NOT facilitate the loss of energy from the system. It INHIBITS the loss of energy from the system.

FFS you make some of the stupidest comments on the internet.

Go solve a shell model and get a clue.

david russell
January 10, 2018 at 9:30 AM

What I said is 100% correct. What you say above is either wrong or goofy or irrelevant.

halush
January 10, 2018 at 9:32 AM

No David, what you said is one of the stupidest things written on the internet.

The GHE does not COOL the planet you ignorant idiot.

david russell
January 10, 2018 at 9:35 AM

You have lost all credibility. I’m sure your students at Krispy-Kreme University think the world of you, but hereon you’ve just demonstrated you’re a colossal jerk, that couldn’t convince a high-school class that the sun rises in the morning.

halush
January 10, 2018 at 9:36 AM

You’re the idiot that is trying to claim that the GHE COOLS the planet.

FFS you are stupid.

david russell
January 10, 2018 at 9:39 AM

I am not stupid. That’s a lie. What I said is 100% correct, so that’s 2 lies from you. You are therefore a lying toad.

halush
January 10, 2018 at 9:40 AM

You’re stupid enough to claim that the GHE cools the planet. That’s INCORRECT you idiot.

Learn some science David, and stop being such an easily duped moron.

david russell
January 10, 2018 at 9:42 AM

No one believes you, as you are a liar.

halush
January 10, 2018 at 9:45 AM

WTF are you talking about?

The entire scientific community believes that the GHE warms the planet.

FFS you are stupid. Why do you cling to such obviously wrong statements?

david russell
January 10, 2018 at 9:55 AM

I just got off the phone with Santa. You are now on the Naughty List. Enjoy your lump of coal this December.

halush
January 10, 2018 at 9:58 AM

Come back to reality David. The GHE is a warming effect on the surface, not a cooling effect.

You’re an idiot.

david russell
January 10, 2018 at 10:38 AM

I am not an idiot and you are mischaracterizing my position, as usual.

halush
January 10, 2018 at 10:42 AM

You are an idiot David.

You stated that the GHE is a cooling effect. It’s not you ignorant imbecile. The GHE is a warming effect. Without it the average temperature of the surface would be ~255K.

david russell
January 10, 2018 at 11:08 AM

What I stated is 100% correct. No one should rely on your characterization of what I say, as you are a liar.

halush
January 10, 2018 at 11:11 AM

No you ignorant moron, your statement that GHGs facilitate cooling is incorrect. GHGs inhibit the transfer of energy from the surface to the atmosphere.

You’re an idiot.

david russell
January 10, 2018 at 11:33 AM

GHG’s close to the surface do the opposite — the facilitate transfer of heat to the atmosphere. At altitude a significant portion of CO2 absorbed IR is radiated to space and therefore cools the atmosphere.

halush
January 10, 2018 at 11:36 AM

You’re an idiot David. The presence of GHGs makes the troposphere WARMER. If you are talking about the stratosphere, then say so. Otherwise, you continue to prove that you have no idea what you are talking about.

You’re an idiot.

david russell
January 10, 2018 at 10:39 AM

Climate science is pseudo-science.

halush
January 10, 2018 at 10:43 AM

You don’t understand basic math and science David.

You’re a colossally stupid idiot that makes some of the most ridiculously idiotic comments on the internet.

david russell
January 10, 2018 at 11:07 AM

I scored 740 on my math SATs. Admittedly I don’t have a no-show teaching job at Krispy-Kreme University like you.

halush
January 10, 2018 at 11:09 AM

Who cares what you did as a 17 year old David? TODAY, you are proving that you are a moron that can’t understand basic math and science.

You’re an idiot.

david russell
January 10, 2018 at 11:34 AM

And you are proving that you are a liar. No further proof of that is required.

halush
January 10, 2018 at 11:37 AM

Back to your corner David.

You have yet to find a comment where I have lied. You’re a hypocritical @$$h0le.

LD50
January 10, 2018 at 11:35 AM

Dullard.

I scored 770. And a perfect score on my GRE. And that’s why you give that moron too much credit. He’s an abject imbecile.

david russell
January 10, 2018 at 2:07 PM

I don’t think of him as an imbecile, but rather as a nasty, intellectually dishonest, zealot/advocate for AGW pseudo-science.

halush
January 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM

LOL – Look at all of you idiots comparing SAT and GRE scores. These tests don’t even touch on calculus. The majority of students accepted to grad programs in the hard sciences and engineering get 800 (old score) on the math GRE.

Feel free to chime in on any of the technical content being discussed LD. My guess is that you will either run away or demonstrate gross incompetence like David has.

LD50
January 10, 2018 at 2:52 PM

The “majority”, eh? You’ve been on an admissions committee? Which school?

halush
January 10, 2018 at 2:57 PM

Yes, the majority at the R1 institution I am at. Yes, I am on admissions committees. I’m not planning on providing any identifying information. Are you?

Now, how about that technical content? Or do you want to continue to discuss topics that you have zero experience with?

LD50
January 10, 2018 at 4:53 PM

Then they must have dumbed-down the GRE. No surprise, there. Just like with your moronic presumptuousness.

halush
January 10, 2018 at 5:03 PM

So you are going to continue to avoid discussing any technical content. Quelle surprise.

Take care moron.

LD50
January 10, 2018 at 6:29 PM

You didn’t ask anything, SFB.

halush
January 10, 2018 at 6:44 PM

You’re the one that called me a moron. Based on what arguments that I have made did you come to that conclusion?

LD50
January 10, 2018 at 6:58 PM

It’s your reliance on belittling others, in the context of a discussion on the merits, that makes you a moron — which happens to be my observation, not something I’m “calling you”.

halush
January 10, 2018 at 7:07 PM

I don’t rely on belittling others to make my arguments. My arguments stand on their own and are entirely valid. That David is a moron is based on observations and interactions with him over several months. For example, he claimed that still water can form plateaus.

So, I take it that you have no issues with any of the technical content of my posts then. You’re just a delicate snowflake and a tone-troll.

“Adiabatic heating occurs when the pressure of a gas is increased from WORK done on it by its surroundings”

“Adiabatic cooling occurs when the pressure on an adiabatically isolated system is decreased, allowing it to expand, thus causing it to do WORK on its surroundings.”

david russell
January 10, 2018 at 11:09 AM

We are all laughing at you.

halush
January 10, 2018 at 11:12 AM

You can laugh all you want. Your the moron that doesn’t understand that adiabatic heating/cooling involves WORK.

FFS, get a clue.

david russell
January 10, 2018 at 11:32 AM

And you are a liar.

halush
January 10, 2018 at 11:33 AM

LOL – This is your standard retreat David.

Adiabatic heating/cooling involves WORK. How on Earth do you think that is a lie?

FFS you are stupid.

david russell
January 10, 2018 at 9:31 AM

Adiabatic temperature change of air occurs without the addition or removal of energy. That is, there is no exchange of heat with the surrounding environment to cause the cooling or heating of the air.

halush
January 10, 2018 at 9:36 AM

“In an adiabatic process, energy is transferred to its surroundings only as work.”

A parcel of air in descent is being compressed by the air surrounding it. That surrounding air is doing WORK on the descending parcel.

Learn some science you incompetent moron.

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 11:10 PM

Are you intentionally asking dumb questions?

halush
January 9, 2018 at 11:13 PM

I’m asking you a question that you have no idea how to answer.

How do you calculate that the surface temperature is 288K given the sun’s input?

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 11:25 PM

Here’s one for you: What is the use of rope? Do you know? Why nor? Are you a moron?

halush
January 9, 2018 at 11:26 PM

There are many uses of rope. Right now you are hanging yourself.

How do you calculate that the surface temperature is 288K given the sun’s input?

halush
January 9, 2018 at 8:43 PM

What you’ve missed is how to compute the temperature at any given point in the atmosphere.

FFS you are too stupid to understand that you aren’t able to explain anything.

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 11:21 PM

I’m not too stupid to realize that CO2 doesn’t explain the temperature by capturing 15 micron range IR and radiating it back to the surface. Nor am I too stupid to ignore that if the atmosphere is radiating 330W/M2 down, it must radiate 330W/M2 up, which doesn’t happen. CO2 merely distributes the IR it captures to other 99.9% non-GHG, non-radiating gases in the atmosphere, and at altitude cool the atmosphere by radiating to space.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 11:24 PM

You’re are too stupid to understand that there is no reason that the amount of radiation radiated down by the atmosphere 10m and above should be the same as the amount of radiation radiated up by the ground and the atmosphere below 10m. IT’S NOT A SYMMETRIC SITUATION.

FFS you are colossally stupid.

Roald J. Larsen
January 9, 2018 at 2:26 PM

“Moreover wherever a CO2 molecule is in the atmosphere that 1 photon will “go up” half the time and “go down” half the time.”

CO2 molecules radiate in all directions, not only up and down, and, CO2 molecules doesn’t react to IR radiation in the temperature interval from 220 – 320 K. That means you need to go up in the atmosphere to get an effect. But then there’s another problem, that far up there’s even less CO2 than at the surface, i.e. CO2 play no role in heating the planet.

Water, as a collection of molecules, has properties. Features like boiling and temperature are associated with such ensembles of molecules.

An individual molecule does not have temperature and does not know when to boil. Such a statement is in and of itself nonsensical for individual molecules.

Learn some basic physics moron.

Roald J. Larsen
January 10, 2018 at 12:54 PM

I understand why you are anonymous, ashamed of your low IQ., ay!??

Oh well, i’ll help you (even if i risk throwing diamonds to hogs, reason, logic and common sense doesn’t resonate to low IQ., “green” leftists.)

“I’m a professional infrared astronomer who spent his life trying to observe space through the atmosphere’s back-radiation that the environmental activists claim is caused by CO2 and guess what? In all the bands that are responsible for back radiation in the brightness temperatures (color temperatures) related to earth’s surface temperature (between 9 microns and 13 microns for temps of 220K to 320 K) there is no absorption of radiation by CO2 at all. In all the bands between 9 and 9.5 there is mild absorption by H2O, from 9.5 to 10 microns (300 K) the atmosphere is perfectly clear except around 9.6 is a big ozone band that the warmists never mention for some reason. From 10 to 13 microns there is more absorption by H2O. Starting at 13 we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole. Nowhere from 9 to 13 microns do we see appreciable absorption bands of CO2. This means the greenhouse effect is way over 95% caused by water vapor and probably less than 3% from CO2. I would say even ozone is more important due to the 9.6 band, but it’s so high in the atmosphere that it probably serves more to radiate heat into space than for back-radiation to the surface. The whole theory of a CO2 greenhouse effect is wrong yet the ignorant masses in academia have gone to great lengths trying to prove it with one lie and false study after another, mainly because the people pushing the global warming hoax are funded by the government who needs to report what it does to the IPCC to further their “cause”. I’m retired so I don’t need to keep my mouth shut anymore. Kept my mouth shut for 40 years, now I will tell you, not one single IR astronomer gives a rats arse about CO2 ..”http://www.newscats.org/?p=12983

“.. You may know that temperature is proportional with the population of frequency components in the ensemble. Higher temperature means that both higher frequency energies are present and that there is greater population of energy across all frequencies. This is of course why heat only flows from hot to cold – because the cooler source cannot provide any additional energy frequencies that the warmer object doesn’t already have populated ..”https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/08/25/the-problem-with-climate-alarm-skeptics/

So how does a molecule know ..??

If you answer this with more stupidity you only provide evidence of how little you understand .. Yes, we’re done!

halush
January 10, 2018 at 1:23 PM

FFS you are a stupid moron. Individual molecules don’t have temperature you incompetent idiot.

Get a clue you ignoramus. Maybe go watch a couple of Feynman lectures.

You’re a moron.

Roald J. Larsen
January 10, 2018 at 4:41 PM

I told you not to answer if you’re just going to post evidence of your ignorance ..

And, btw .. show me where i have written that individual molecules have temperature!!!

All alarmist are stupid as bread, old bread – and your advanced understanding of simple English just blows me away :)))

halush
January 10, 2018 at 5:03 PM

You wrote this you ignorant moron, “CO2 molecules doesn’t react to IR radiation in the temperature interval from 220 – 320 K”.

How does a CO2 molecule know what temperature it’s at you incompetent idiot?

CO2 emits and absorbs 13-17 micron radiation at all temperatures you imbecile.

That is correct, but – again – where have i written that individual molecules have temperature?

halush
January 10, 2018 at 6:41 PM

That is not correct you incompetent idiot.

If a 15 micron photon interacts with a CO2 molecule, that molecule can absorb that photon no matter what the temperature of the surrounding gas is.

where have i written that individual molecules have temperature?

What does the 220-320K temperature have to do with a CO2 MOLECULE interacting with radiation?

The correct answer is that it DOESN’T you incompetent idiot.

Roald J. Larsen
January 10, 2018 at 6:45 PM

Your unhinged rant doesn’t provide any answer, let’s try again (because i am sporty) – Where have i written that individual molecules have temperature?

halush
January 10, 2018 at 6:49 PM

Your statement “CO2 molecules doesn’t react to IR radiation in the temperature interval from 220 – 320 K” implies that the temperature of the surrounding gas has an effect on how CO2 molecules interact with radiation.

That implication is incorrect you incompetent idiot BECAUSE the CO2 molecules that are interacting with the photons have no information about the temperature of the surrounding gas.

That you didn’t write the words does not absolve you of the implications of the statement you imbecile.

Roald J. Larsen
January 10, 2018 at 6:57 PM

Another unhinged rant, at least you admitted i never said that individual molecules have temperature ..

Another unhinged desperate and information free rant, – why am i not surprised?

IR Expert Speaks Out After 40 Years Of Silence : “IT’S THE WATER VAPOR STUPID and not the CO2”
Mike Sanicola says:

I’m a professional infrared astronomer who spent his life trying to observe space through the atmosphere’s back-radiation that the environmental activists claim is caused by CO2 and guess what? In all the bands that are responsible for back radiation in the brightness temperatures (color temperatures) related to earth’s surface temperature (between 9 microns and 13 microns for temps of 220K to 320 K) there is no absorption of radiation by CO2 at all. In all the bands between 9 and 9.5 there is mild absorption by H2O, from 9.5 to 10 microns (300 K) the atmosphere is perfectly clear except around 9.6 is a big ozone band that the warmists never mention for some reason. From 10 to 13 microns there is more absorption by H2O. Starting at 13 we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole. Nowhere from 9 to 13 microns do we see appreciable absorption bands of CO2. This means the greenhouse effect is way over 95% caused by water vapor and probably less than 3% from CO2. I would say even ozone is more important due to the 9.6 band, but it’s so high in the atmosphere that it probably serves more to radiate heat into space than for back-radiation to the surface. The whole theory of a CO2 greenhouse effect is wrong yet the ignorant masses in academia have gone to great lengths trying to prove it with one lie and false study after another, mainly because the people pushing the global warming hoax are funded by the government who needs to report what it does to the IPCC to further their “cause”. I’m retired so I don’t need to keep my mouth shut anymore. Kept my mouth shut for 40 years, now I will tell you, not one single IR astronomer gives a rats arse about CO2. Just to let you know how stupid the global warming activists are, I’ve been to the south pole 3 times and even there, where the water vapor is under 0.2 mm precipitable, it’s still the H2O that is the main concern in our field and nobody even talks about CO2 because CO2 doesn’t absorb or radiate in the portion of the spectrum corresponding with earth’s surface temps of 220 to 320 K. Not at all. Therefore, for Earth as a black body radiator IT’S THE WATER VAPOR STUPID and not the CO2.

January 25, 2014 at 11:28 pm

This is exactly what I have been reporting from running the radiative transfer model used by NCAR. The people writing these models know that global warming is BS.

That again corresponds to what is actually measured (in many ways the measured US temperature records IS the global temperature records for most of the first part of the 20. century and before, simply because that is where the instruments was located.)

“.. where the water vapor is under 0.2 mm precipitable, it’s still the H2O that is the main concern in our field and nobody even talks about CO2 because CO2 doesn’t absorb or radiate in the portion of the spectrum corresponding with earth’s surface temps of 220 to 320 K. Not at all.”

Keep documenting you don’t understand simple English! :)))

halush
January 10, 2018 at 7:36 PM

CO2 certainly DOES radiate in the spectrum from 13-17 microns, and the Earth ALSO radiates in the 13-17 micron band in the temperature range from 220-320K.

“Starting at 13 we get CO2 absorption”

Would you like me to calculate HOW MUCH radiation is produce in the 13-17 micron band at 220K and 320K?

You truly are an ignorant moron Roald.

Roald J. Larsen
January 10, 2018 at 7:49 PM

:)))

That is funny!!

“Would you like me to calculate HOW MUCH radiation is produce in the 13-15 micron band at 220K and 320K?”

You know more than the IR expert with 40 years experience???

What does Greenpeace / WWF aka IPCC say about this magic?

“IPCC Published reports, (TAR3), acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. This information has been presented in the IPCC reports. It is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate) [1]. It is a crucial fact, but not acknowledged in the IPCC summary for Policy Makers[2].”https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/10/the-diminishing-influence-of-increasing-carbon-dioxide-on-temperature/

But hey, you are much more advance than any of us, not only does your CO2 absorb radiation, your magic CO2 even produces radiation :)))

It’s been fun ..

halush
January 10, 2018 at 7:55 PM

You’re not quoting an “expert” you moron. You’re quoting a fraud. Anyone can calculate the amount of radiation emitted in the 13-17 micron band at 220K and 320K. Here are the answers:

220K: 25 W/m^2 of radiation is emitted in the 13-17 micron band
320K: 104 W/m^2 of radiation is emitted in the 13-17 micron band

These assume emissivity of 1, so simply multiply by the emissivity if you don’t like that approximation.

CO2 does absorb radiation you ignorant imbecile, and the absorption is largely independent of temperature. Furthermore, the CO2 in the air DOES radiate, and the amount of radiation coming from CO2 in the air is dependent on the temperature of the air. These facts are know by all scientists competent in radiative heat transfer. Obviously your friend, Mike Sanicola, is not one of them.

Get a clue you incompetent idiot.

Roald J. Larsen
January 10, 2018 at 8:03 PM

I see no documentation ..

.. because?

Let’s say it together, – Because it is pseudoscience :)))

A little sad you didn’t even bother to throw in a PAL-reviewed paper just to be a good sport ..

ROO2 continues to violate the terms of service by his impersonation of me, using the my same username. This is the 11th time he has done it on this article. It shows that he is begging to be blocked. He has previously made vulgar, defamatory comments using my username impersonation account.
Please block ROO2 and his impersonation account for violating the terms of service for impersonation. You can see from his comment history that he has done this 105 times. ROO2 finds where I am am commenting and then impersonates me with his FAKE RealOldOne2 account.

His behavior shows that he is so deranged and unhinged, he may carry out his threats. Please block this ROO2 troll, and his associated accounts such as the above FAKE RealOldOne2 account. His behavior shows that he is just wanting to troll and disrupt the discussion.

Thank you.

RealOldOne2
January 10, 2018 at 5:53 PM

How does water know when to boil?

Its sentient, as are water molecules in the atmosphere that know when and where to radiate energy.

ROO2 continues to violate the terms of service by his impersonation of me, using the my same username. This is the 10th time he has done it on this article. It shows that he is begging to be blocked. He has previously made vulgar, defamatory comments using my username impersonation account.
Please block ROO2 and his impersonation account for violating the terms of service for impersonation. You can see from his comment history that he has done this 105 times. ROO2 finds where I am am commenting and then impersonates me with his FAKE RealOldOne2 account.

His behavior shows that he is so deranged and unhinged, he may carry out his threats. Please block this ROO2 troll, and his associated accounts such as the above FAKE RealOldOne2 account. His behavior shows that he is just wanting to troll and disrupt the discussion.

Thank you.

Roald J. Larsen
January 9, 2018 at 1:31 PM

FAKE data do show an uptrend, but then again, who would cheat and NOT get the results they wanted??

In reality there has been no warming, not even natural warming in 6 decades, it’s a slow down-trend, 1936 still the warmest year ever measured.

Li D
January 9, 2018 at 3:31 PM

You are not well and should see your General Practicioner . Tell him or her what you just said . They will arrange appropriate treatment and care.

While true, I’d suggest not taking their troll bait to enter their food fight. Leave them be the ones to expose their childish name-calling because they can’t refute the science we post which shows that they are wrong. Just my 2₵.

“Newsfeed – Hasslefree allsorts | Build the wall – Renegotiate NAFTA – Repeal Obamacare – Lower Taxes – Drain the swamp – End the (Man Made) Global Warming / (Man Made …http://www.newscats.org
News, tips and contact: We support President Donald Trump any way we can. If you want to contribute in any way, publish pictures, videos, stories or news, feel free to use this email…..,”

James Owens
January 9, 2018 at 6:27 PM

Thermistors recording temps on sometimes a minute by minute basis at ground stations and on sea buoys – plus satellite scans of sea surface temps – and so on.
Yep, definitely Looney Larson to try and call that fake!

Roald J. Larsen
January 9, 2018 at 6:52 PM

I didn’t try anything, i called it for what it is – FAKE!

Propaganda is most unfair to low level IQ people, they are most vulnerable ..

Mathematical epistemologists like the author of this article are NOT climatologists. Nor is he familiar with most of the data, including that which he is using. He is among the blind leading the blind.

“Since the petroleum industry started its activities on the [Norwegian continental shelf], enormous sums have been invested in exploration, field development, transport infrastructure and land facilities.”

You’re right though, it was rude of me to call Roald an imbecile, and especially bad considering I believe he’s mentally ill.

My only point was that Norway is filled with highly educated people.

Roald’s anti-science blather is actually quite unusual for a Norwegian, though they do have their own fossil fuel industry, and their own fossil prostitutes. It could be that Roald is such a paid liar, but I doubt it. The people who work at CFACT certainly are, of course:

“CFACT has received over $4.1 million in funds from Donor’s Trust and Donor’s Capital Fund between 2002-2011, plus an additional $582,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998-2012”

Universities and researchers are paid to ‘find’ that CO2 causes global warming. Scientists and especially researchers are not going to bite the hand that feeds them! They only care about the funding and truth is of little import.

CB
January 21, 2018 at 10:16 PM

“Universities and researchers are paid to ‘find’ that CO2 causes global warming.”

They were!

…centuries ago:

“The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other
gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Once it was conclusively proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, funding dried up a bit!

If the fossil fuel industry wanted to prove that CO₂ doesn’t cause warming, they could certainly fund that research…

Why are they funding propaganda outlets like CFACT instead?

BigWaveDave
January 21, 2018 at 11:16 PM

If the fossil fuel industry wanted to prove that CO₂ doesn’t cause warming, they could certainly fund that research…

If CO₂ could cause measurable warming, why hasn’t anyone ever stated a theory that explains how that could physically be possible?

CB
February 26, 2018 at 3:07 PM

“why hasn’t anyone ever stated a theory that explains how that could physically be possible?”

Your question assumes that which is not in evidence and is itself a dodge of my own.

This is the way to identify yourself as an unreliable source of information.

Well done!

/s

“During the day, the Sun shines through the atmosphere. Earth’s surface warms up in the sunlight. At night, Earth’s surface cools, releasing the heat back into the air. But some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That’s what keeps our Earth a warm and cozy 59 degrees Fahrenheit, on average.”

climatekids.nasa.gov/review/greenhouse-effect

BigWaveDave
February 26, 2018 at 10:26 PM

How does showing that NASA is selling nonsense to kids, and calling it science, offer an explanation of how warming from CO2 could be physically possible?

The average Earth temperature has risen 1.8°F since 1900, the Earth is getting a fever and life and sea levels are being impacted in ways that have bad consequences for us. See the Fourth National Climate Assessment, recently released by the Trump administration, from NOAA, NASA, the DOE, the National Academy of Sciences, and a dozen other scientific organizations for the facts: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/

Ignorant denial of the consequences of our actions will not prevent us from harm. Acting responsibly might: cclusa.org/write

Randy Thompson
February 25, 2018 at 9:09 PM

Thanks for explaining that the rise in temperature is due to humans. We’ve always wondered why the Ice Age ended and I think you cleared that up for us. It must have been dinosaurs driving SUV’s.

James Owens
February 25, 2018 at 9:21 PM

Milankovitch cycles on the Ice Age end starting about 18,000 years BP.
Dinosaurs were several 10’s of millions before that.
Think you may be aware of that, Randy (at least I hope so)

Randy Thompson
February 26, 2018 at 11:56 AM

So, who was it who drove those SUV’s that caused the end of the Ice Age?

James Owens
February 26, 2018 at 12:51 PM

The earth’s orbital variations – the Milankovitch cycles (cycles, not SUVs, the old fashioned way)

Randy Thompson
February 26, 2018 at 11:18 PM

James, you didn’t answer my question. If it would help any, maybe you could ask Fat Al to explain who caused the Ice Age to end.

TRANSLATION: Jimmy is afraid to answer the question and wants to run and hide to avoid showing his ignorance.

James Owens
March 1, 2018 at 9:35 PM

No, Randy – I gave you the straight and simple answer: Milankovitch cycles.
Sorry that you’ve made your ignorance part of the public record.
Now read up and ask the scientists about Milankovitch cycles.

Randy Thompson
March 1, 2018 at 9:03 PM

Nice attempt at ducking the question Jimmy, but you still haven’t addressed the base question. If you and Fat Al are so convinced that man is the cause of climate change, what caused the Ice Age to end?

Please, just for a change, try to reply with something intelligent instead of hiding from the question.

James Owens
March 1, 2018 at 9:32 PM

Gave you a straight and one sentence, “Widdle” Randy
Milankovitch cycles on the Ice Age end starting about 18,000 years BP

9.8m/ss
March 1, 2018 at 10:27 PM

what caused the Ice Age to end?

The last ice age hasn’t ended yet, silly. It’s called the Quaternary. There have been a couple of dozen glacial periods in it. The glaciers come and go (with a period of about 105000 years) because of variations in Earth’s orbit. Those variations are called the Milankovitch cycles. You should have learned about them in eighth grade earth science. Did you really think nobody knew the answer to “what caused the Ice Age to end?”

By the way, we were about two thirds of the way through current interglacial period, the Holocene. The climate was relatively stable for ten thousand years. Then the industrial revolution started, and climate started changing way faster than it does during the Quaternary glacial transitions. If you don’t think that sudden, rapid change is manmade, what force do you believe is driving it? What makes you think so?

Li D
January 8, 2018 at 4:16 AM

I cant help but wonder what deniers think keeps them warm now!
How they think the atmosphere we have operates.
Oh its just volcanoes or communists or some variety of tripe.
Muppets.

Frederick Colbourne
January 8, 2018 at 4:47 AM

Try variations in the Earth’s albedo related to changes in cloudiness.

Ned Christy
January 8, 2018 at 7:30 PM

Is that something new to Earth’s atmosphere?

Li D
January 9, 2018 at 5:02 AM

Ok. Tried that for about 3 and a half seconds. Dosnt fit the data well at all. Sorry. Its certainly a component to the several billion year old dynamic however.
Got anything else?

CB
January 8, 2018 at 3:00 PM

“I cant help but wonder what deniers think keeps them warm now!”

I can’t help but wonder why in the world they would have such difficulty figuring out that employees of a company are not a reliable source of information on the product that company sells.

This is not especially complicated…

“CFACT has received over $4.1 million in funds from Donor’s Trust and Donor’s Capital Fund between 2002-2011, plus an additional $582,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998-2012”

I can’t help but wonder why in the world they would have such difficulty figuring out that employees of a company are not a reliable source of information on the product that company sells.

Is it any different when the company is the government?

CB
January 8, 2018 at 11:53 PM

“Is it any different when the company is the government?”

LOL!

Well, yes, sweetheart!

It’s different because governments and companies are two totally different things.

I feel like that’s something you should already know…

“Still Disinforming: ExxonMobil’s Continued Culpability in Climate Denial… Despite Exxon’s science-supported position statement on climate change on its website, the company continues to spout misinformation on the topic.”

Employees of governments or companies are still employees. Are you saying that government employees behave differently? How do you determine what is misinformation?

Do you think the government employees never spout misinformation?

Do you honestly think that the stupid stuff you promote such as CO2 causing bad weather or warming has any actual scientific support? If so, why hasn’t anyone offered a theory of how it could be physically possible for CO2 to have the claimed effect?

Li D
January 9, 2018 at 5:56 AM

“If so, why hasn’t anyone offered a theory of how it could be physically possible for CO2 to have the claimed effect?”
Oh for gods sake! Change the bloody record.
Its as stupid as saying ” ohhh how come no ones ever come up with a theory about the ground shaking in various places from time to time.”
Jeez are you 5 years old or something.
If you dont have the resources to locate the information , ask your parent/guardian, teacher, or librarian.
Handwaving via claimed naivete is super pathetic in an adult.
Take care to avoid such behavior when you grow up.

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 11:24 AM

You need anger management.

BigWaveDave
January 9, 2018 at 1:00 PM

Apparently, you can’t state a theory that explains how it could be possible for atmospheric CO2 to have a measurable influence on tropospheric temperatures near Earth’s surface.

If you are saying you can, then state the theory.

BigWaveDave
January 16, 2018 at 3:48 PM

If you believe you have seen a theory of how it could be physically possible to see a measurable temperature effect from a halving or doubling of the CO2 in our atmosphere, why can’t you state the theory?

The fact is that no one has ever stated a theory that explains how CO2 in our atmosphere could have any measurable temperature influence.

Yes. Governments don’t make money by paying out a lot of it for no good reason.
Private companies DO make money by continuing to sell their products.

Ned Christy
January 8, 2018 at 6:40 PM

There are no sensible questions the planet has warmed a lot in the past 40 years with the Arctic Ocean’s old thick perennial ice almost all melted away.

Mountain glaciers around the world are melting away, for example in the area named Glacier National Park in the Rocky mountains only 24 small glaciers still exits and the scientists who study glaciers say all will be gone by 2020;

The ocean waters have warmed several degrees F since 2014 and the rise of temperature is killing the tropical coral reefs at a rate of near 15% a year for the past 3 years…. There is no reason the won’t continue until all of the coral reefs are dead within another 4 to 4 years.

The argument in this article is atmospheric CO2 does not effect the surface temperature of the planet… Well if it isn’t the rise of atmospheric CO2 that has caused the rise of temperature what is the reason for it?

Some argue the small amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is not near enough to make any difference… Well small amounts actually can make a big difference.

Here is an excellent example of why CO2 is an important greenhouse gas…. > (“Scientific studies of greenhouse gases discovered the most important was simple water vapor (H2O).

Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousands. Just as (*a sheet of paper will block more light*) than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere.”

We have seen the results of global warming during the past 40 years as the CO2 has risen at a fast rate since 1984.

That is when the Arctic’s old thick ice, ice up to more than 18 feet thick began a fast and stead melt until now there is little ice left that is even 2 feet thick in the Arctic Ocean except for some calved icebergs.

Here is a NASA video that shows the Arctic Ocean’s Perennial ice disappearing from 1984 to 2016 in a time lapse film in less than 2 minutes… That is due to global warming.

Finally President’s Trumps joke is funny, but in the summer time of Australia it is so hot there the blacktop roads are melting due to record setting high temperature once again as we experienced here in the Northern Hemisphere last summer. It is Global Warming, not local weather events.

Ned Christy
January 8, 2018 at 7:24 PM

I joined the discussion and my post was blocked as (DETECTED AS SPAM.) .

It was not spam… I posted a NSIDC link that showed the Arctic Ocean’s old, thick Perennial ice melting away since 1990 until now there is almost no old thick ice left in the Arctic Ocean.

That melting ice all around the globe in mountain glaciers and in the Arctic is due to warming…. What caused the warming if not the huge increase of CO2 since 1975?

There isn’t a peer reviewed paper that shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming.

Ned Christy
January 9, 2018 at 3:19 AM

In short the sun has always warmed the planet, there have not ALWAYS been global warming events.

The global warming events are due to the amount of CO2 in the Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere… That is what you argue against and you are wrong. The current global warming event has been caused by human activity overcoming the NATURAL balance of atmospheric greenhouse gases.

The current global warming event is a repeat of the natural global warming event of 260 million years ago only this time it is due to humans burning fossil fuels instead of millions of years of volcanic activity…. This time it has taken less than 120 years for the atmospheric CO2 level to exceed the 300ppm level and rise to over 400ppm.

The ocean waters will continue to warm further and continue to kill off the tropical coral reefs and cause El Nino in the Pacific Ocean and the sunbeams will continue to produce the same amount of energy to Earth as it did a thousand years ago when the atmospheric CO2 level was at 280ppm and glaciers and the polar ice caps were stable and the coral reefs were not dying due to warmer water.

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 12:31 PM

“The global warming events are due to the amount of CO2 in the Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere.”
That’s an evidence-free claim. There’s not a peer reviewed paper in existence that has empirically shown that CO2 has been the cause of any climate warming.

No it is a well established claim…. The higher the CO2 level the warmer it gets… That is what has been happening now for the past 70 plus years.

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 8:10 PM

“The higher the CO2 level the warmer it gets”
You have the cause and effect reversed. The empirical data shows that higher temperatures cause higher CO2 levels, because the temperature changes first and then the CO2 changes later.

Peer reviewed science shows that CO2 lags temperature changes in all the various temperature records:

“Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millenium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface temperature data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. …

A main control on atmospheric CO2 appears to be the ocean surface temperature, and remains a possibility that a significant part of the overall increase of atmospheric CO2 since at least 1958 (start of Mauna Loa observations) simply relflects the gradual warming of the oceans as a result of the prolonged period of high solar activity since 1920 (Solanki et al., 2004). Based on the GISP2 ice core proxy record from Greenland it has previously been pointed out that the present period of warming since 1850 to a high degree may be explained by a natural c. 1100 yr periodic temperature variation (Humlum et al., 2011). …

As the rate of net CO2 outgassing from the ocean then is affected by reduced solubility, this offers a simple physical explanation of the observed time lag. …

Conclusions
There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower tropospheric temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.
(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11-12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9.5-10 months behind changes in global surface air temperature.
(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
(5) Changes in ocean temperature appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
(6) CO2 released from anthropogene sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.
(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.” – Humlum et al., (2013), ‘The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature’

Ned Christy
January 9, 2018 at 8:19 PM

You wrote, > (“The empirical data shows that higher temperatures cause higher CO2 levels, because the temperature changes first and then the CO2 changes later.
The cause much come before the effect. Temperature changes first, THEN CO2 changes happen later. This is observed in this graph of surface temperature and CO2:”0.

You are behind the time Old One… That has been proven to be wrong information… See what has been happening since 1900 and get yourself educated.

see more

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 8:23 PM

“That has been proven to be wrong information”
Yet another evidence-free claim that denies reality.

Post your empirical data and peer reviewed science to back up your claim.
Oh, you can’t, because you are just making stuff up!

Ned Christy
January 9, 2018 at 8:30 PM

You don’t knw the Atmospheric CO2 level has been rising since 1900 at a fast rate and the surface temperature of the planet has followed that rise of CO2? ___ Gheeze Old One everyone know that…. Everyone who isn’t stupid.

You really should take some time off, a year or two and study the subject before you attempt to discuss it..

Rather, deglaciation is probably initiated by some insolation forcing (1, 31, 32), which influences first the temperature change in Antarctica (and possibly in part of the Southern Hemisphere) and then the CO2. This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing. First, the 800-year time lag is short in comparison with the total duration of the temperature and CO2 increases (∼5000 years). Second, the CO2increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation (Fig. 3).

Finally, the situation at Termination III differs from the recent anthropogenic CO2 increase. As recently noted by Kump (38), we should distinguish between internal influences (such as the deglacial CO2 increase) and external influences (such as the anthropogenic CO2 increase) on the climate system. Although the recent CO2 increase has clearly been imposed first, as a result of anthropogenic activities, it naturally takes, at Termination III, some time for CO2 to outgas from the ocean once it starts to react to a climate change that is first felt in the atmosphere. The sequence of events during this Termination is fully consistent with CO2 participating in the latter ∼4200 years of the warming. The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks (39) that are also at work for the present-day and future climate. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e200958d6042ad16bc166e3e7652a0cbabcbf4c778447794777b4c21b4e2035d.gif

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 11:07 PM

No matter how much handflapping you do, it will never move Antarctica into the northern hemisphere. You stuffed yourself!

Sorry, but that doesn’t move Antarctica into the Northern Hemisphere.
And nice selective quoting, leaving out the sentence immediately preceding your quote: “This confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation”

“is fully consistent with CO2 participating with the latter ~4200 years of the warming”
But it doesn’t explain why the temps DROPPED before CO2 levels dropped! The “participation” is just the lagging CO2 rise caused by temperature rise.

Another Grunmut FAIL!

Grumnut1
January 10, 2018 at 12:17 AM

OMG. Don’t dig yourself any deeper.
Stop!
“”This confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation”
That was his point.
Something like a milankovitch wobble was the forcing.
However his paper was not about milankovitch cycles.
So, whatever the forcing WAS, drove CO2 levels up from degassing out of the oceans.
How does he know?
“”is fully consistent with CO2 participating with the latter ~4200 years of the warming”
Milankovitch wobbles don’t last for ~4200 years.
Second, the CO2increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation (Fig. 3).
So. CO2 increase in Antarctica clearly proceeded the warming in the Northern Hemisphere.
CO2 here. Warming there.

You’re right.
See why it’s so hard to talk to a non-scientist.
He wasn’t interested in taking ice core samples in the northern hemisphere.
That’s not what his paper was about again.
Remember?
He didn’t have to.
That’s what deglaciation meant.
In other words, when did the ice start melting in the northern hemisphere.
When did temperatures start to rise in the northern hemisphere?
Was it after CO2 levels rose in the southern hemisphere?
Yes it was.
That’s all you need to know.
And he said so.

I asked you for a citation, and you have NEVER provided a citation for any science of NH ice core data showing that CO2 rise preceded temperature rise. All you done is handflap because you can’t back up your claim with any peer reviewed science, like you claimed existed. You have been exposed as making false claims just to support your climate cult religion with jihadist zeal. Sad.

Since your climate cult zealotry won’t let you accept the reality that you are wrong, I expect that you will continue to handflap, and you WON’T provided any citation which includes NH ice core data which shows CO2 precedes temperature change.

My empirical data and peer reviewed science which shows that temperature changes first and then CO2 changes later stands unrefuted.

You are just denying reality. Sad.”

I should NEVER have said the ice cores were in the northern hemisphere.
However, do you concede that the Caillon et al peer reviewed paper clearly asserts:
“the CO2 increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation (Fig. 3).”?

Ned Christy
January 9, 2018 at 9:48 PM

Here Old One study all of this and you should be educated on the subject… Come back in a year or two and show your stuff.

Okay, that is enough time wasted on you Old One…. You replied in less than 30 seconds and didn’t even open the links…. You have well proven that you are just a mouthy wacko so so long Old One.

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 10:12 PM

“Okay, that is enough time wasted on you Old One”
Giving up in defeat. Good plan so you don’t further expose your scientific illiteracy.

“You replied in less than 30 seconds and didn’t even open the links”
I opened the links and saw that they did not show that CO2 changes preceded temperature changes or that CO2 was the earth’s thermostat.
The real world data has debunked Lacis’s pseudoscientific claim.
None of those Bing search images showed that CO2 changes precedes temperature changes or that CO2 is the earth’s “thermostat”.

Your comment was just like saying, I am right: Search the internet!

Ned Christy
January 9, 2018 at 10:20 PM

You are a liar Old One…. It s easy to prove.

You replied in about 25 seconds… It would take hours or evne days to read all of those articles I linked for you… One link has dozens of articles that concern CO2 and how it is the thermostat for the planet’s temperature.

Here is another that explains how the atmospheric CO2 is the thermostat for the planet’s temperature. … I am done with you, you lied and are a waste of time.

“I am done with you”
Good plan. That will save you further embarrassment of exposing your ignorance of science.

Ned Christy
January 10, 2018 at 2:10 AM

Moose … “Hi Real Old One, I heard the planet’s temperature rose .03 degrees C last month; do you know what caused it?”

Real Old One. “Hi Moose, yeah, it was another El Nino, hit unexpectedly because an El Nino came last year”.

Moose… “Oh wow, two El Nino’s in a row, hard to believe. Do you know where they come from Old One?”

Old One… “Oh yeah, I pull them out of my azz”

Any you are also a proven liar Real Old One… You are disgusting.

Ned Christy
January 10, 2018 at 3:50 AM

Real Old One, You wrote, > (“I opened the links and saw that they did not show that CO2 changes preceded temperature changes or that CO2 was the earth’s thermostat.”).

That is a huge (LIE) Real Old One… Here is the first things written in the NASA article I posted for you. > quote > (“CO2: The Thermostat that Controls Earth’s Temperature
By Andrew Lacis — October 2010
A study by GISS climate scientists recently published in the journal Science shows that atmospheric CO2 operates as a thermostat to control the temperature of Earth.”).

That IS a Peer Reviewed study and published in a Science Journal that states atmospheric CO2 IS the thermostat that controls the Earth’s temperature.

And that is something you asked me to post for you and now you LIE and say you opened the link and it didn’t say any of that.. . Wow and LOL, stupid liar, easy to prove.

So it is NO use debating with you because you are a liar and I said that’s it, I am done with you and you reply with your crap in an attempt to show you are the one who is correct… Pitiful Real Old One, really pitiful… It is all here for any who are reading these comments and give a rip.

RealOldOne2
January 10, 2018 at 7:37 AM

“and now you LIE and say you opened the link and it didn’t say any of that.”
Wrong. I said I opened the link and recognized that it was Lacis’s “thermostat” paper, which I have previously read, and knew that the real world empirical data has falsified Lacis’s “thermostat” hypothesis. I never said that it didn’t make the CLAIM that CO2 was the Earth’s “thermostat”.

It doesn’t matter what the paper claims. What matters is if the empirical data confirms what it claims, and the empirical data does NOT confirm what it claims. The empirical data contradicts what it states, so that means the “thermostat” hypothesis is WRONG! As my previous comment showed, when you turn your “thermostat” up by adding more than 1/3 of all the human CO2 ever produced to the atmosphere in the most recent ~2 decades and the temperature doesn’t change, it falsifies the thermostat hypothesis. When you turn up your “thermostat” by adding 2/3 of all the human CO2 ever produced to the atmosphere from 1940-1970 and the temperature goes DOWN by ~0.7C, as much as it increased from 1880-1940, it falsifies the “thermostat” hypothesis. The real world empirical data shows that it is junk pseudoscience.

“Compare it with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is, if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong! That’s all there is to it.” – Physicist Richard Feynman, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

It’s a shame that you don’t understand how science works.

Ned Christy
January 10, 2018 at 12:28 PM

Hey Old One I have your original post cut ad pasted of what you wrote before you went back and changed it after you found out you were caught lying.

I prove with screen captures that I did not got back and change anything, and I prove with screen captures that I was not lying about anything. YOU are the one who is lying. You are pathetic.

Ned Christy
January 11, 2018 at 3:03 AM

LOL… You do not have screen copies of something you deleted.

Now here you still say the NASA article I posted does not say CO2 is the thermostat for the planet’s temperature… Yes it does and the link is still here for any who may give a rip to open… I won’t post it here again and be accused of SPAMMING it by a computer or a MOD or by you… It is here in this group of arguments… You are a liar, accept it.

Ned Christy
January 11, 2018 at 5:17 AM

You say you didn’t say that but then you say it again and you do not have a copy of something you deleted. You are the one who is pitiful.

Now here you still say the NASA article I posted does not say CO2 is the thermostat for the planet’s temperature… Yes it does and the link is still here for any who may give a rip to open… I won’t post it here again and be accused of SPAMMING it by a computer or a MOD or by you… It is here in this group of arguments… You are a liar, accept

Ned Christy
January 10, 2018 at 3:56 AM

You say “JUNK pseudoscience”:… LMAOff.

The “Junk” article I linked for you is a NASA peer reviewed article published in Science Journal and states CO2 is the thermostat that controls the Earth’s temperature.

RealOldOne2
January 10, 2018 at 7:23 AM

“The “Junk” article I linked for you is a NASA peer reviewed article published in Science Journal and states CO2 is the thermostat that controls the Earth’s temperature.”
It doesn’t matter what it states. What matters is if the empirical data confirms what it states, and the empirical data does NOT confirm what it states. The empirical data contradicts what it states, so that means the “thermostat” hypothesis is WRONG!

“Compare it with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is, if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong! That’s all there is to it.” – Physicist Richard Feynman, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

It’s a shame that you don’t understand how science works.

Ned Christy
January 10, 2018 at 12:30 PM

Yeah, NASA’s peer reviewed paper saying CO2 is the thermostat for the planet’s temperature is all wrong,,, Real Old One says so.

halush
January 10, 2018 at 3:40 PM

Yes, it is all wrong. Simply publishing a paper doesn’t make it true. Coincidence is not causation.

Ned Christy
January 10, 2018 at 7:20 PM

Hi Hay Lush… So you are telling us that the NASA scientists who conducted a scientific study finalized their conclusions had their paper peer reviewed and accepted to be published in Science Journal is not true.

Why don’t you tell us the moon landings never happened too and that the Flat Earthers are all correct. Go play with your marbles haylush if you still have any of your marbles.

halush
January 11, 2018 at 8:12 AM

No, the moon landings did happen. Are you saying every paper that has been peer reviewed is true? LOL. Watcj out that will really bite you in the whatever.

Ned Christy
January 11, 2018 at 2:50 PM

No I am not saying that… I am saying what the new study says is confirmed by observed science and I choose to accept it….. It does not go with your opinions about the AGW issue however so I understand your objections but don’t care what you think.

halush
January 11, 2018 at 4:40 PM

“So you are telling us that the NASA scientists who conducted a scientific study finalized their conclusions had their paper peer reviewed and accepted to be published in Science Journal is not true.”

“Are you saying every paper that has been peer reviewed is true? ”

“No I am not saying that… I am saying what the new study says is confirmed by observed science and I choose to accept it.”

Your foray into the moon landing was truly off the mark.

Ned Christy
January 9, 2018 at 8:36 PM

Hey Real Old One, be serious for a few minutes… If you really thought about it you would have to agree you are just wrong…

Since the atmospheric CO2 level is the “thermostat” for the surface temperature of the planet, how could it follow the rise of heat?

You don’t turn the thermostat up after the heat come on. Stop being senile. How old are you anyway?

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 8:42 PM

“Since the atmospheric CO2 level is the “thermostat” for the surface temperature of the planet, how could it follow the rise of heat?”
Answer: CO2 is not the “thermostat” for the surface temperature of the planet. That’s just false propaganda talking point which has been debunked by real world empirical data.

Your first graph just shows the natural warming caused by the natural 2015-2016 El Nino. Thanks for confirming warming is natural.

Your second graph just show the natural warming caused by the predominance of El Ninos in the late 20th century, as well as the fact that the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface during the late 20th century increased by 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m², which was ~10 times more than the increase in CO2 forcing. Documented in this comment of mine: http://www.cfact.org/2018/01/02/no-co2-warming-for-the-last-40-years/#comment-3694807615
Thanks for confirming the late 20th century warming was natural too.

Thanks for confirming that there has been no CO2-induced warming in the satellite record, which is the only temperature record which is anything close to a global temperature record.

Grumnut1
January 9, 2018 at 10:58 PM

No, the first graph I had no reference point for.
I took me about an hour to get a straight line out of it.
Luckily, you don’t have to do that.
Someone else spent an hour for you giving you the same false impression I just did.
Why did they do that in the first place I wonder?
It’s HARD to do.
Also I thought I showed you this.
Even if I concede solar irradience doesn’t start trending down till 1960, by 1978 it’s WELL on it’s way.
What’s wrong with those satellites?https://i2.wp.com/jcmooreonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Solar1.jpg

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 11:13 PM

You are handflapping again.
Your graph is TSI @ ToA, which doesn’t refute my comment about the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface.
Another total FAIL by you. Sad.

Grumnut1
January 9, 2018 at 11:17 PM

Your graph is TSI @ ToA.
Yep. That might tend to indicate solar output.
The fact you’d prefer to read it from a cellar doesn’t change that fact.
How ‘ya goin’ with that Caillon et al paper?

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 11:36 PM

“That might tend to indicate solar output”
But it doesn’t indicate how much solar radiation reaches the surface. You FAIL.

How ha’ goin’ with your denial of all the conclusions of Humlum(2013)?

“Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millenium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface temperature data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. …

A main control on atmospheric CO2 appears to be the ocean surface temperature, and remains a possibility that a significant part of the overall increase of atmospheric CO2 since at least 1958 (start of Mauna Loa observations) simply relflects the gradual warming of the oceans as a result of the prolonged period of high solar activity since 1920 (Solanki et al., 2004). Based on the GISP2 ice core proxy record from Greenland it has previously been pointed out that the present period of warming since 1850 to a high degree may be explained by a natural c. 1100 yr periodic temperature variation (Humlum et al., 2011). …

As the rate of net CO2 outgassing from the ocean then is affected by reduced solubility, this offers a simple physical explanation of the observed time lag. …

Conclusions
There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower tropospheric temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.
(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11-12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9.5-10 months behind changes in global surface air temperature.
(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
(5) Changes in ocean temperature appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
(6) CO2 released from anthropogene sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.
(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.” – Humlum et al., (2013), ‘The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature’

Grumnut1
January 9, 2018 at 11:55 PM

“CO2 increases lagged deglacial warming by 800 ±200 years” – Caillon(2003) ‘ Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III’
I told YOU that.
Don’t you understand his reasoning?
Is THAT your problem?
“I’ll give you the WHOLE quote.
This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing. First, the 800-year time lag is short in comparison with the total duration of the temperature and CO2 increases (∼5000 years). Second, the CO2increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation (Fig. 3).

RealOldOne2
January 10, 2018 at 12:10 AM

Sorry, but all the data in Caillon(2003) is Antarctica ice core data.

I’m still waiting for you to offer any Northern Hemisphere ice core data which shows that CO2 leads temperature change.

If we’re only interested in measuring the Sun’s output, why on earth are we interested in how much of reaches the ground?
In fact. Wouldn’t satellite measurements (which normally aren’t sitting on the ground) be the best way to measure that?

RealOldOne2
January 10, 2018 at 12:08 AM

“why on earth are we interested in how much of reaches the ground?”
Because that is the key factor that determines the earth’s temperature. This has been known for decades:

“It follows from the analysis of observation data that the secular variation in the mean temperature of the Earth can be explained by the variation of shortwave radiation arriving at the surface of the Earth.” – Budyko(1969) ‘The effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the Earth’

Stupid link, not relevant. IF the increase in CO2 follows the increase in temperature, no other fact is relevant other than the truth of that claim. And if that claim is true, AGW from rising human CO2 emissions goes right out the window.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 11:16 PM

Conservation of mass is an important principle David. Humlum violated it.

You’re an easily duped idiot.

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 11:23 PM

Brushing your teeth after every meal is an important principal too.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 11:25 PM

You’re too stupid to understand the importance of the COM.

FFS you’re an idiot.

Li D
January 10, 2018 at 4:58 PM

You might wanna do that seeing how much shit comes out of your mouth.

david russell
January 10, 2018 at 5:49 PM

I never lie. You sound like you have low social skills. Maybe a Dale Carnegie course is in order for you.

Li D
January 10, 2018 at 6:21 PM

Citizens of countries with nuclear weapons cant be lecturing others on social skills. Savvy?
Pissant denier.

david russell
January 10, 2018 at 9:51 PM

Ah. I see. Your problem is deeper than poor social and communications skills. You are a loon. There’s no fixing that.

Refuted. That the UPTAKE of CO2 by the oceans is temperature dependent is well-known.

FFS you’re an idiot.

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 11:22 PM

“Refuted.”
Yes, you have been refuted, because you can’t quote anything from Richardson(2013) which shows that CO2 leads temperature change.

“You’re an idiot.”
As I’ve already said, you are so good at projection!

halush
January 9, 2018 at 11:24 PM

You’re a moron that’s been refuted.

Grumnut1
January 10, 2018 at 1:22 AM

It’s like playing “Whack a Mole” with RealOldOne2 .
He has a logic bypass.

Ned Christy
January 10, 2018 at 5:08 AM

CB thinks he Real Old One is a sock puppet for David Russell…. She showed excellent evidence for that.

RealOldOne2
January 10, 2018 at 7:18 AM

“He has a logic bypass.”

You’re projecting again.

Grumnut1
January 10, 2018 at 7:33 AM

It took so long to explain to you that the Caillon et al paper stated that CO2 rise preceded temperature rise. It took about 10 attempts.

RealOldOne2
January 10, 2018 at 8:02 AM

“It took so long to explain to you that the Caillon et al paper stated that CO2 rise preceded temperature rise. It took about 10 attempts.”
Sorry, but you failed to show any Northern Hemisphere ice core data which showed that CO2 preceded temperature changes. You showed speculation from Antarctica ice cores. Kind of like Sherwood trying to deny the lack of tropospheric hot spot by ignoring the direct measurements from radiosondes and claiming the he could find a hotspot from wind speeds. Not using real data and conjuring up hypothesis using other data.

I’m still waiting for you to give me some Northern Hemisphere ice core data which shows that CO2 precedes temperature change.

Grumnut1
January 10, 2018 at 8:22 AM

“Sorry, but you failed to show any Northern Hemisphere ice core data which showed that CO2 preceded temperature changes.”
Correct.
Instead the Caillon et al paper stated that the northern hemisphere warmed after CO2 levels rose in Antarctica.
Why do you want an ice core?
What good is any ice core anywhere?
Do you want a duck with four legs while you’re at it?
I TOLD you, you were frustrating.
Tell me why you don’t need any ice cores, either from Antarctica, or ANYWHERE in the northern hemisphere.
SURELY you can work that one out, or am I asking too much?

While we’re at it, what is the hot spot, and what does it prove?

RealOldOne2
January 10, 2018 at 8:45 AM

Wow, such histrionics!
So you’re right back to your MAGIC GAS, CO2, which you claim leads warming in the Northern Hemisphere but lags warming in the SH. You believe in magic, confirmed by Dr. Lindaen, Prof. of Atmospheric Sciences, Emeritus at MIT: “Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. … In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists of many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic.” – http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/richard-lindzen-thoughts-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/
He debunks many other propaganda talking points of your climate alarmist religion in his essay too.

“You agree that CO2 leads warming in the Northern Hemisphere.”
No silly troll, I don’t agree with that at all, because Humlum(2013) provides the empirical data that says CO2 lags temperature.
I was just pointing out your ridiculous beliefs.
Your thrashing and flailing is hilarious!

However, you mentioned the hot spot before.
What is it, and what does it signify?

RealOldOne2
January 10, 2018 at 4:00 PM

“It seems that paper is not doing well’
Humlum(2013)’s conclusions that CO2 changes lags temperature changes have never been shown to be wrong, and no empirical data was presented which contradicted Humlum’s data. The attack papers were about the anthropogenic vs. natural CO2 and were just claims, so Humlum’s conclusions stand.

Grumnut1
January 10, 2018 at 4:02 PM

Nope. It’s not the data that’s the problem.
So you’re right.
What about that hot spot?

No. You mentioned the hot spot.
Why are they wrong.
C’mon. that’s an easy one.

Ned Christy
January 10, 2018 at 11:26 PM

CO2 is the thermostat for the planet’s temperature… You don’t turn the thermostat up after the heat comes on.

RealOldOne2
January 11, 2018 at 1:58 AM

“CO2 is the thermostat for the planet’s temperature… You don’t turn up the thermostat up after the heat comes on.”

No, CO2 is NOT the thermostat for the planet’s temperature. I have shown you the empirical evidence that temperature changes first, THEN the CO2 changes later. That proves that CO2 cannot be the thermostat that controls the earth’s temperature. It’s such a shame that you are too dim to understand that, and that you believe that the cause comes after the effect. Quite delusional.

That comment totally discredits you as it exposes 6 lies you have told about this.

Ned Christy
January 11, 2018 at 2:53 AM

You asked me to give a peer reviewed paper that says CO2 is the thermostat for the temperature of the planet.

I did do that, a NASA article which said a new study was completed and scientists found that CO2 is the thermostat for the temperature of the planet… The study results were peer reviewed and published in Journal Science.

You said the article was no good….. You refuse to accept that science… That is your problem. In addition here since 1900 scientists have observed the temperature follow CO2 levels.

halush
January 11, 2018 at 8:42 AM

On study doesn’t make something science. You refuse to accept what science actually is.

Ned Christy
January 11, 2018 at 2:45 PM

Oh a study that have been completed by NASA , GISS scientists, peer reviewed and published in Journal Science is not science? Oh it is science that disagrees with what you wish to hear so it isn’t science. I understand, thank you for explaining yourself for me.

halush
January 11, 2018 at 4:46 PM

No, it was a study that an author said came to a miraculous conclusion that CO2 is a thermostat for the climate. Most scientists would never make a statement like that.

“Even Gavin Schmidt, Jim Hansen’s successor as head of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, whose website, Realclimate.org, is a major defender of global warming, does not agree with claims of extremes: “General statements about extremes are almost nowhere to be found in the literature but seem to abound in the popular media. . . . .It’s this popular perception that global warming means all extremes have to increase all the time, even though if anyone thinks about that for 10 seconds they realize that’s nonsense.”

To say a complex system like our climate is controlled by CO2 is extreme and if you think about it for 10 seconds you might realize that it is nonsense.

halush
January 11, 2018 at 8:20 AM

I agree with you on your statement. However, it was discovered in the early 2000s that our temperature records from ice cores show the temperature goes up first and then the CO2 increases. That makes perfect sense, since a warming ocean will outgas CO2. And the alarmists have admitted as much. So you don’t turn the thermostat up after the heat comes on means CO2 is not the thermostat because clearly that is what has happened in the past.

Ned Christy
January 11, 2018 at 2:48 PM

That opinion from the ice core samples does not agree with observed science and the NEW study by scientists at NASA show that CO2 leads temperature. Is there some reason you ignore new science findings?

halush
January 11, 2018 at 4:55 PM

Facts and history. We have 100,000 of years showing us the temperature and the CO2 levels and they show us that increase in temperatures happens first followed by increased CO2.

Now what does the NEW study by NASA show?

RealOldOne2
January 11, 2018 at 5:16 PM

“does not agree with the NEW study by scientists at NASA show that CO2 leads temperature”
Sorry but your Lacis paper was based on climate models, not empirical data, like Humlum(2013) paper.

You have not cited any papers that use empirical data to show that CO2 leads temperature. None of the alleged refutations of Humlum(2013) provided any data that showed CO2 changes lead temperature changes. It’s all climate model-based pseudoscience.

halush is right on this one.

Grumnut1
January 9, 2018 at 4:35 AM

Yes. See your graph. From 1959 that’s when solar irradience has been falling. right when we started to really heat up. It really only takes a few weeks for a change in irradience to show up here, so don’t claim it’s some kind of delayed reaction.

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 12:22 PM

“From 1959 that’s when solar irradiance has been falling.”
Wrong. The running 11-yr mean to remove the cycle shows the peak was after 1980, but your point is wrong, because the mean level over the recent decades is still the highest in 4 centuries.

“You can see it a bit more closely if you blow up the last part of the graph”
Blowing up the graph doesn’t change the fact that the mean level of solar radiation over the last several decades is the highest in the last 4 centuries. Neither does it change the fact that the thermal inertia of the climate systems is large, which moderates the swings in temperature. The oceans store most of the thermal energy and release it over time.

Grumnut1
January 9, 2018 at 2:39 PM

The thermal inertia from the oceans IS large. However if the Sun snuffed out today, we would all be freezing tomorrow.
You didn’t watch the video did you.
You never DID tell me why it’s warming faster at night than during the day.

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 2:50 PM

“However is the Sun snuffed out today, we would all be freezing tomorrow.”
No,global temperatures would not drop below freezing tomorrow.

“You didn’t watch the video did you”
I’ve watched a few of potholer’s climate cult propaganda videos. They’re full of pseudoscience.

You are the one who has never explained the physical mechanism that explains why your MAGIC gas, CO2 raises night time temperatures but doesn’t raise daytime temperatures.

Grumnut1
January 9, 2018 at 3:11 PM

“You are the one who has never explained the physical mechanism that explains why your MAGIC gas, CO2 raises night time temperatures but doesn’t raise daytime temperatures.”
Yes. That’s my question to you.
Thank you for restating it.
You haven’t answered it yet.
UHI obviously doesn’t cut it.
Where is the energy source at night that drives the UHI effect?
During the day, I can understand it.
Wouldn’t UHI work the OTHER way?

You’ve butchered this guy. I’m surprised he doesn’t change his call sign, as his current one is thoroughly destroyed.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 10:49 PM

Ask him if two objects at equal temperatures exchange energy with one another.

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 11:11 PM

Another dumb question. Is there no bottom to this barrel of nonsense you’re spouting?

halush
January 9, 2018 at 11:13 PM

Why is that a dumb question?

Do you know the answer David?

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 11:23 PM

I don’t answer dumb questions.

halush
January 9, 2018 at 11:26 PM

It’s a simple question David.

Do two objects at equal temperatures exchange energy with one another?

Grumnut1
January 9, 2018 at 10:59 PM

Oh, he’s still got a couple of things to answer.

david russell
January 9, 2018 at 11:07 PM

Well, then: Keep digging. I’ll alert China to expect you soon.

Grumnut1
January 10, 2018 at 1:23 AM

I’ve gone past the earth’s core.
Man it’s warm in here.
Perhaps this is where all this global warming comes from.
Oh Nooooo.

david russell
January 10, 2018 at 8:35 AM

Presumably at Earth’s core you are weightless, right?

Grumnut1
January 10, 2018 at 8:54 AM

I’ve certainly lost a few kilos.

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 11:20 PM

He’s no challenge. The quality of the CAGW-by-CO2 climate cult zealots has dropped to basement dwelling level.
The ones with any intelligence have jumped ship.

Grumnut1
January 10, 2018 at 1:24 AM

Cause you redefine the word “frustrating”

Ned Christy
January 10, 2018 at 5:06 AM

Check out his argument with me here and see where he flat out lied and it was so easy to prove… He is a stupid liar.

RealOldOne2
January 10, 2018 at 7:57 AM

“Check out his argument with me here and see where he flat out lied.”
Wrong. I never lied. You claimed that I said that Lacis’s paper didn’t state that CO2 was the earth’s “thermostat”. You were fabricating a strawman because I never said that. I posted empirical data which showed that Lacis’s “thermostat” hypothesis is wrong. I posted facts & data which is science. You posted a hypothesis which the facts & data shows is wrong.

“and it was so easy to prove”
Strawmen are easy to blow down, which is why people use that logical fallacy.

You have once again demonstrated your lack of logical skills, your lack of reasoning skills and your lack of critical thinking skills.

Ned Christy
January 10, 2018 at 11:23 PM

Bull… The article I linked stated CO2 is the thermostat for the planet’s temperature… You said it didn’t say that and then deleted that lie.

RealOldOne2
January 11, 2018 at 1:51 AM

“You said it didn’t say that, and then deleted that lie.”
Poor Ned, you continue to tell lies which have been exposed as being lies. I never said that it didn’t “say” that CO2 is the thermostat for the planet’s temperature. I said that your links did not “show” that CO2 was the planet’s thermostat.
And I did not go back and delete anything. You are just lying again. You are one pathetically dishonest climate cult troll.

You lie again as you wrote, > (“Poor Ned, you continue to tell lies which have been exposed as being lies. I never said that it didn’t “say” that CO2 is the thermostat for the planet’s temperature.”)

On the contrary, the first sentence of the NASA article I posted the link for you says, CO2 is the thermostat for the temperature of the planet and I have a copy of the email I received with your reply to me where you stated you had opened the links I posted and the articles did not say the CO2 is the thermostat for the planet’s temperature..

I called you out on your lies and you then deleted that from your post… I have the evidence with the email which I copied and is in my documents.. You lied, you are lying here again and you tried to hide your lies.

RealOldOne2
January 10, 2018 at 7:51 AM

“Cause you redefine the word “frustrating”.”
I know that my showing your empirical data which debunks your climate alarmist beliefs is very frustrating for you. But I’m just showing you empirical science. You can’t refute it and that makes you very frustrated. Deal with it. It’s reality.

ROO2
January 11, 2018 at 5:59 AM

It’s always david russell that that enacts Danth’s Law.

Such a common occurrence too.

david russell
January 11, 2018 at 8:46 AM

There’s always a doofus out there who doesn’t get it. ROO2 can be relied upon to fill the bill.

I had to look up Danth’s Law: 1) it’s hardly a law, more like an insult; 2) it’s used to insult the person who thinks he’s won, NOT a SPECTATOR evaluating someone else’s argument [ROO2 misuses the term, in other words].

Grumnut1
January 9, 2018 at 11:01 PM

Not much UHI in the middle of the ocean either. Particularly at night.
Unless it’s ships air conditioners.

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 11:18 PM

“Not much UHI in the middle of the ocean either”
Not many 24 hour thermometer measurements in the middle of the ocean either, so you are making another baseless, evidence-free claim. Sad.

Grumnut1
January 10, 2018 at 1:27 AM

Satellites?
Also remote stations on small islands?
Even ones stuck in the middle of a cow paddock.
Ones in valleys.
Others on mountain tops.

RealOldOne2
January 10, 2018 at 7:49 AM

Show me the DATA!
That’s how science is done.

UHI happens most in small towns, not large towns.

“The village of Barrow, Alaska, is the northernmost settlement in the USA and the largest native community in the Arctic. The population has grown from about 300 residents in 1900 to more than 4600 in 2000. … Here we demonstrate a strong urban heat island (UHI) during winter … the urban area averaged 2.2°C warmer than the hinterland. The strength of the UHI increased as the wind velocity decreased, reaching an average value of 3.2°C under calm (<2 m s⁻¹) conditions and maximum single day magnitude of 6°C." – Hinkel(2003) 'The Urban Heat Island in Winter at Barrow, Alaska' ,http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.971/pdf

Then that biased warming due to uncorrected UHI efffet is smeared 1200km into the Arctic areas because there are so few stations there.

“While the urban heat island helps raise temperatures in cities, warmer nights have been observed in both rural and urban areas. That points to the role of long-term warming driven by greenhouse gases being added to the atmosphere.”

RealOldOne2
January 10, 2018 at 8:28 AM

Nope, you didn’t refute the peer reviewed science I posted.
You just linked to a dishonest propaganda site for your climate alamrism religion which showed NO data about “stations in the middle of farmland”. You sure are gullible, ideologically blinded, and easily duped.
Even a school child can do science better than Heidi Cullen on that climate alarmist propaganda website: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_G_-SdAN04

Grumnut1
January 10, 2018 at 8:48 AM

Congratulations. You trying to show something that’s not in contention. UHI is a real phenomenon.
Even a station in the middle of New York or LA that may be dramatically affected by it, will not necessarily warm FASTER at night then one on a deserted island or out in the middle of the ocean.
Why would it?
Why would it be any different?

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 11:25 AM

The AGW zealots have descended on this article. Most of them are unglued in their advocacy. LOL

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 1:30 PM

Yes, they follow each other around like a pack of hyenas, trolling by making logically fallacious comments, avoiding the empirical science that they can’t refute, and posting their CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate alarmist religion’s dogmas and evidence-free talking points.
They get extremely angry when you post empirical science that proves them wrong. They ignore the science that proves them wrong, and mindlessly regurgitate their climate alarmist religion’s false propagnada and talking points.
They’re really quite pathetic.

Immortal600
January 9, 2018 at 2:41 PM

You hit that one square on the head.

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 6:55 PM

Dr. Richard Lindzen did also say that the surface of the Earth receives energy from both the Sun and the atmosphere and that anybody who denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is “nutty”.

ROO2 continues to violate the terms of service by his impersonation of me, using the my same username. This is the 9th time he has done it on this article. It shows that he is begging to be blocked. He has previously made vulgar, defamatory comments using my username impersonation account.
Please block ROO2 and his impersonation account for violating the terms of service for impersonation. You can see from his comment history that he has done this 105 times. ROO2 finds where I am am commenting and then impersonates me with his FAKE RealOldOne2 account.

His behavior shows that he is so deranged and unhinged, he may carry out his threats. Please block this ROO2 troll, and his associated accounts such as the above FAKE RealOldOne2 account. His behavior shows that he is just wanting to troll and disrupt the discussion.

Thank you.

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 9:11 PM

Poor ROO2 is impersonating me again, replying to you with my username and pretending to be me. He’s one sad, dishonest character.

ROO2 continues to violate the terms of service by his impersonation of me, using the my same username. It shows that he is begging to be blocked. He has previously made vulgar, defamatory comments using my username impersonation account.
Please block ROO2 and his impersonation account for violating the terms of service for impersonation. You can see from his comment history that he has done this 105 times. ROO2 finds where I am am commenting and then impersonates me with

His behavior shows that he is so deranged and unhinged, he may carry out his threats. Please block this ROO2 troll, and his associated accounts such as the above FAKE RealOldOne2 account. His behavior shows that he is just wanting to troll and disrupt the discussion.

Thank you.

Roald J. Larsen
January 9, 2018 at 5:54 PM

I did also flag it, he is as fake as a 3 dollar bill.

RealOldOne2
January 9, 2018 at 6:04 PM

ROO2 stalks me by following his climate alarmist troll friends to where I am commenting, and then trolls me with his lies and dishonest claims. When I don’t engage his trolling, he gets angry and impersonates me by posting with his FAKE RealOldOne2 account. This is his proven MO.

He has become obsessed with me because I have repeatedly exposed his ignorance of science with comments which he can’t refute, first under his Dan account, then later under his ROO2 account.

I have reported him to Disqus, but you can only report a user once. They are investigating it now.

You and others can report him too & document his impersonation and harassing stalking with links to where he is repeatedly doing this on multiple other blog articles if you see his impersonation of me as improper.

What would be even more helpful would be for moderators of websites like CFact to report ROO2 and his RealOldOne2 impersonation accounts to Disqus for his disruptive and harassing impersonation of me.